A STUDY OF TUB RELATIONSHIP OP EVALUATIVE ATTITUDES TO SCHOLASTIC ABILITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Paul Lewis Ward, B. S., M. Ed.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1959

Approved by

Adviser Department of Education ACKNOWLSDGMBHTS

Gratitude is expressed to many individuals for tdeir encouragement and assistance in this study* To Professor Herman J. Peters, the writer's adviser, who encouraged and supervised the project; to Professor Collins Burnett, who provided counsel and suggestions as the study progressed; to Professor George Maccia, who served as a member of the reading committee; to the subjects, whose cooperation made possible the ac­ tual data; and to the numerous friends and relatives whose encouragement proved helpful — to all these individuals the writer is deeply appreciative.

il TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OP PROBLEM ... 1 Int roduc t i on ...... 1 Statement of the Problem .... . 5 Importance of the Problems Under Consideration...... 7 Hypotheses...... 10 hypotheses Concerning Intelligence 10 hypotheses Concerning Achievement 11 Limitations of - the Study...... 11 Definitions of Terms...... 15 Summary...... 16 II RELATED LITERATURE...... 18 An Orientation to Attitude Measure­ ment...... 18 Values, Scholastic Ability, and Academic Achievement • • •...... 26 Interests, Scholastic Ability, and Academic Achievement...... 59 Stability of Interests...... 45 Interests and Academic Achievement 47 Manifest Needs, Scholastic Ability, and Academic Achievement...... 51 Summary...... 55 III IROCEDURES OF THE STUDY...... 57 The Setting of the Study...... 57 The Population Samples...... 59 The Instruments...... 65 Gathering the Data...... 71 Treatment of the Data...... 74 IV THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY...... 76 The Findings Hypotheses Concerning Attitudes and Ability...... 76 hypotheses Concerning Attitudes and Achievement...... 88 Additional Findings and Observa­ tions...... 97 Summary and Conclusions...... 101

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER Page V IMPLICATIONS AND SUMMARY...... 109 Implications...... 109 Summary ...... 119 APPENDIX...... 121 Questionnaire...... 122 Numerical Data of the Study* *. * 124- BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 15^ AUTOBIOGRAPHY...... 158

iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I AGES OF STUDENTS IN THE FOUR SAMPLES... 62 IT POPULATION OF STUDENTS’ HOME COMMUNITIES...... 62 III STUDENTS' RESIDENCE WHILE IN COLLEGE... 63 IV MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY STUDENTS ON CATEGORIES OF THE STUDY OF VALUES...... ?B V MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY STUDENTS ON THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD, PERSONAL...... 81 VI MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY STUDENTS ON SCALES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL HLEFERBNCE SCHEDULE 84 VII MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ACHIEVING AND LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS ON CATEGORIES OF THE STUDY OF VALUES 90 VIII MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ACHIEVING AND LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS ON THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD, PERSONAL.. 94 IX MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ACHIEVING AND LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS ON SCALES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFER­ ENCE SCHEDULE...... 96 APPENDIX TABLES X THROUGH XXV -- NUMERICAL DATA OF THE STUDY-124

v CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM

Introduct ion Educational, psychological, and sociological efforts in the present century have focused rather in­ tensively upon problems of human adjustment and develop­ ment, Profuse efforts have been and are being made to determine why some individuals react quite favorably in terms of existing social practices and institutions and why others find varying degrees of difficulty in social adjustment, educational progress, and vocational pro­ ductivity. It is generally agreed that the home, the school, the church, and other organized agencies should assist young people in developing educational, vocational, and social skills* But there is a lack of agreement as to how youth may best be encouraged and aided in developing these needed and desirable skills. At one time it was believed that intelligence was the sole determinant of scholastic success. Even today some academicians attempt to explain all student failure in terms of low intelligence. Despite theoretical and em­ pirical advances to the contrary school workers may be found who seemingly believe that the highly intelligent students are.

1 destined to succeed in school work and in life and that the students of rather low intelligence are condemned to very limited in-and out-of-school success. Although intelligence is generally recognized as a factor in scholastic success, research data in recent years clearly indicate that many other factors likewise may affect students' scholastic achievement or personal adjustment. The specific nature of these "other factors" is frontier territory to the educator, the psychologist, the anthro­ pologist, the sociologist, and other students of human behavior. But substantial progress has and is being realized. Research efforts continue, primarily at colleges, universities, or child research oenters, end desirable changes may be observed frequently in educational and community practices. Parents, educators, and the public in general are in­ creasingly emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive approach to human understanding. For example, the term intelligence does not seem to possess the formidable signif­ icance it did a few years ago. Innate abilities are not being de-emphasized. They are being re-emphasized. Teachers are in many instances attempting to capitalize on the differential aspeots of students* abilities whereas they once treated intelligence as a unitary trait. Parents are realizing that differential aptitudes among their own children demand variant school programs and relative expectations concerning achievement* But many factors other than basic ability are being considered* In their attempts to understand and cope with problems of educational progress and personal adjustment professional and lay workers have considered attitudes, interests, values, needs, perception, home background, and several other factors* Though the findings in these areas are hardly sufficient for unequivocal application to educational practices, child rearing, or personal life, many of the results are gratifying. At this stage in our culture a wide-spread faith exists; a faith which assumes that by putting forth con­ tinued and disciplined efforts mankind will be able to understand better how to learn and how to live more effec­ tively. In essence, many efforts are being made by educa­ tional and various lay personnel to augment efficiency in educational and personal activities* Increasing emphasis is being placed upon comprehensiveness in the understanding of individual differences, especially among students* It is believed that a broad understanding of human abilities, values, interests, needs, and other personality traits will make possible more efficiency and effectiveness in educational endeavors and personal development* In this study the investigator is concerned with a restricted aspect of this larger problem, the understanding of differences and similarities among students* The in­ vestigator seeks to explore several aspects of students' differences and similarities* It is believed that the factors e^lored in the present study may influence, and perhaps be influenced by, scholastic ability and academic achievement. The focus here shall be upon the attitudes characteristic of college students. It is a well-known faot that not all persons who aspire to complete a program of training in a teacher- education institution are able to do so. Some students find that they are unable to maintain the academic standing which is necessary to continue the college training* Others may lose interest, or develop other interests, and turn either to another phase of college work or leave the college situation altogether* Much more information is needed con­ cerning both those students who are performing successfully within the college situation and those who are not. The writer's interest in this area of human activity stems from a consideration of such seemingly insoluble questions as: What attitudes are characteristic of the students who possess high scholastic ability? Do the students of high intelligence, as measured by a reputable instrument, differ from the students of muoh lower ability in terms of expressed evaluative attitudes? What attitudes are characteristic of the students who are achieving at a high level in their college work? Do the students who are achieving at a high level differ in terms of evaluative attitudes from the students who are achieving at a low level? It is such questions as these that serve as the foci of the present investigation, and it is hoped that by concentrating upon groups of students who are characterized by high scholastic ability, low scholastic ability, high academic achievement, and low academio achievement signif­ icant differences oan be isolated which will throw light upon present teaching and counseling practices. Also, if the exploratory aspects of the study prove fruitful, it may become possible to deduce implications for the modification of existing teaching and counseling practices, especially at the college freshman level.

Statement of the Problem When stated in question form the central concerns of this study become: Are there significant differences in the expressed values and preferences of students who possess high scholastic ability as opposed to students who possess much lower soholastio ability, and do students who are achieving at a high level academically express values and preferences which differ significantly from those expressed by students who are achieving at a much lower level academically? 6 When these problems are considered in terms of the specific manner they will be attacked in Chapter IV of this study, the following questions arise. 1. Do students who possess high scholastic ability express values which are significantly different from the values expressed by students who possess much lower ability? 2. Do high ability students express interests which are significantly different from those expressed by students of much lower ability? 5. Do students who possess high scholastic ability differ in terms of selected personal preferences from lower ability students? 4. Do students who are achieving at a low level academically express values which are significantly dif­ ferent from the expressed values of students who are achieving at a high level academically? 5. Do students who are achieving at a low level academically express interests which are significantly different from the interests expressed by students who are achieving at a much higher level academically? 6. Do students who are achieving at a high level academically differ significantly in terms of selected per­ sonal preferences from students who are achieving at a much lower level? 7. In what ways, if any, other than in terms of scholastic ability, do high ability and low ability students 7 differ that might have significance for guidance and/or instruction during the first year in college? 8* In what ways, if any, other than in terms of scholastic ability, do high achieving and low achieving students differ that would have significance for guidance and/or instruction during the first year in college? 9. On the basis of the findings whioh may result from the investigations indicated above, what implications become apparent for guidance and instruction at the college level?

pnpo-ptaneft of the Problems Udder Consideration In recent years educators have become concerned over the fact that many students who seemingly could perform well at the college level do not do so. In a study of drop* outs from Arkansas Colleges, Halladay and Andrew report that "thirty-six per cent of all drop-outs were earning a passing grade at the time they left school, while sixty-four per cent of the drop-outs were not passing or did not complete one semester of work."3, When summarizing the reasons why students left the colleges these writers conclude:

Students give many reasons for dropping out of college, including going to work, dissatisfaction with school, entering military service, academio

1D. Whitney Halladay and Dean C. Andrew, "Drop-outs from Arkansas Colleges," The Personnel and Guidance Journal. (November, 1958), £12. 8 suspension, health, family obligations, financial, transferring, and others. However, the colleges had no known realms for over 30 per cent of the drop-outs.s It seems quite significant that the most conclusive finding of the above mentioned study is that inconclusive evidence is available concerning the problem of freshman mortality. Perhaps the answer is not to be found in such generalized student responses as "dissatisfaction with school, family obligations, financial, or transferring" as in the evaluative attitudes, viz., the values, interests, and personal preferences of the students while they are still in school, not at the time of the exit interview. The present study might well reveal differences in the evaluative attitudes of high ability, low ability, high achieving, and low achieving students. Such knowledge could prove helpful to counselors and teachers in their efforts to reduce the drop-out rate of able students from colleges and universities. There is also the problem of student motivation. It is not only the problem of keeping able students enrolled in college that concerns educators, but also the pre­ vailing question of how to motivate them to do their best work. An assumption which is no doubt introduced in all teacher-education institutions at present is that students will feel more inclined to learn and will progress more

■ 213. readily if their true natures, their needs, interests, and unique abilities, are token into consideration as the materials to he learned are presented. There is no reason to believe that this prinoiple would be applicable only to elementary and secondary education. It should likewise be applied to teaching and learning at the college level if it is valid. Therefore, it seems that the findings of the present study should prove significant to the college teacher and counselor in their attempts to determine more clearly the nature of the attitudes characteristic of college freshmen. Suoh information concerning students! attitudes should prove Invaluable when planning and exe­ cuting more effective programs of instruction. Attitudes are the chief stock-in-trade of the counselor, especially when working with college freshmen. Many of these students beoome concerned over vocational, academic, or personal problems which arise as a result of being away from home, encountering individuals with variant value systems, living under oireumstances which are perhaps new to them, or numerous other reasons. It is imperative that counselors understand students * concerns, in as far as possible, from the point of view of the students. It seems that the present investigation might well reveal character­ istic patterns of evaluative attitudes held by freshman students that could prove helpful to personnel workers, especially counselors, at the college level. 10

It is appalling that the non-voeational interests of students has received so little attention. A survey of the literature reveals that studies of vocational interests are numerous while there is little recent attention to the significance of non-vocational interests. It is hoped that the present study will suggest ideas or arouse disbelief to the extent that other investigators will give more attention to the influence which evaluative attitudes may have upon students9 academic and non-academic behavior.

Hypotheses As has been stated previously, the investigator sought to determine whether students who differ markedly in terns of intellectual abilities likewise differ signif­ icantly in terms of values, interests, and other selected personal preferences. Also, an attempt was made to de­ termine the degree to which, if any, students of high academic ability, low academic ability, high academic achievement, and low academio achievement differ in terms of values, interests, and selected personal preferences. Six major hypotheses will serve as the basis for examining these queries concerning human differences. f$rpotheses Concerning Intelligence: 1. There is no significant difference in the values expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the oollege freshman level. 11

2. There is no significant difference in the in­ terests expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the college freshman level* 3. There is no significant difference in the personal preferences (manifest needs) expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the college

freshman level. Hypotheses Concerning Achievement: 4. There is no significant difference in the values expressed by freshman female students who are achieving at a high level and by freshman female students who are achieving at a low level. 5. There is no significant difference in the interests expressed by freshman female students who are achieving at a high level and by freshman female students who are aohieving at a low level. 6. There is no significant difference in the personal preferences (manifest needs) expressed by freshman female students who are achieving at a high level and by freshman female students who are aohieving at a low level.

Limitations of the Study The limitations of this study may be broadly clas­ sified as follows: (1) limitations inherent in the measurement of evaluative attitudes; (2) limitations inourred by the samples used; (3) limitations which may be implicit in the setting of the study. Three verbal-response-type instruments are used in the study. To be sure, most attempts to measure values, Interests, and personal preferences employ the verbal- response method, but it must be borne in mind that only to the extent that the responses of students actually reflect the true evaluative attitudes of the students will the findings be valid. It is highly possible that some students may have attempted to "fake” one or more of the instruments. Also, it is feasible that some students may not have been able to determine what their values, their interests, or their preferences actually were. Only women students are used in the present study, and the students who participated in this study volunteered their time. It is likely that the interests, values, and preferences of students who did not desire to or were not requested to take part in the study would differ somewhat' from the traits possessed by those who did oooperate in the study. It is also quite possible that the nature of the setting, the pervasive atmosphere of the particular college setting, and the social backgrounds of the students who attend The Ohio State University may be limitations of the findings which evolve. It would seem untenable to assume that students in all higher education institutions possess Identical, or perhaps even similar, evaluative attitudes as 13 those exhibited hy the students in the present study. Many factors such as family backgrounds, economic status, religious orientation, physical appearanoe and health, and social position undoubtedly influence evaluative attitudes.

Definitions of Terms Aoademlc ability will often be used interchangeably with the terms, intelligence and scholastio ability, in order to avoid monotony in phraseology. All three terms are intended to convey the idea, ability to learn, especially the ability to learn materials encountered in the college curriculum. The Ohio State Psychological Test, an examination designed to measure students' capacities to learn academic materials, was used to determine the relative level of the academic ability of each of the members of the four samples used in this study. Academic achievement means the grade-point ratio which the members of the samples have earned during the first two quarters of their college work. At The Ohio State University the grading system is as follows: A s 4; B = 3; C = 2; D - 1. The grade-point ratio is arrived at by multiplying the number of hours of eaoh oourse a student has taken times the grade point and dividing this sum total by the total number of hours taken. Academic achievement is the term used in reference to a student's or a group's grade-point ratio. 14

Three terms which will appear as the core of this study are values. Interests, and personal preferences. Values are relative preferences or ascriptions of worth to an object or activity, which object or activity is either actually present or ideally represented. Values are a function of the individual, that is, the reaction of the individual to two or more actual or idealized goals, objects, or activities. Values are not a function of the object, goal, or activity. They are integral parts of the personality of the individual who renders the value judgment. The Allport-Veraon Study of Values will be used to measure students1 values in the present study. "The Study of Values aims to measure the relative prominence of six basic interests or motives in personality: the theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious." 3 The term interests as used in this study is intended to convey the idea that an attitude, feeling, object, or hypothetical situation makes a difference or is of concern to an individual or a group of individuals. Interests will be measured by the Kuder Preference Hecord, Personal. As measured by this self-report instrument, interests become

^Gordon W. Allport, Philip £. Vernon, and Gardner Lindzey, Manual of Directions for the Study of Values (Boston; SbugEton Mifflin Company, l95l), 3. 15 expressions of relative preference or liking for one hypo­ thetical human action or activity over another* These areas of action or activity, as measured by the Kuder Record, are group and family situations, physical versus concept manipulation, conflict avoidance, and influence upon other human beings*4 If the term interest or interests is used in reference to vocational preferences, the adjec­ tive vocational will be present. Personal preferences are expressions of attachment toward, acceptance of, or reaction to one stimulus object rather than another* A preference is a liking for one activity, goal, or idealized situation over another* In this study personal preferences will be measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The following statement from the manual for the Edwards PPS succinctly explains the underlying purposes of the instrument: The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (PPS) was designed primarily as an Instrument for research and counseling purposes, to provide quick and convenient measures of a number of relatively independent normal personality variables. The statements in the PPS and the variables that these statements purport to measure have their origin in a list of manifest needs presented by H. A* Murray and others* The names that have been assigned to the variables are those used by Murray* 5

4Prederic Kuder, Examiner Manual for the Kuder Preferences Record. Personal, frorm A (Chicago: Science Research. Associates, 1953), 1. “ 5Allen L. Edwards, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (New York: The Psychological Corporation,1957),4. 16

The term evaluative attitudes has been chosen as a construct which, when used, will refer to the composite of an individuals or a groups values, interests, and personal preferences.

Summary: Much progress toward a better understanding of human motivation has emanated from the efforts of workers In the social sciences. The identification of differences in intelligence was a major step toward understanding individual differences. At present, though, it is generally accepted that factors other than intelligence influenoe academic achievement and personal adjustment. The purpose of the present study is to investigate three aspects of human motivation: values, interests, and personal preferences. An effort will be made to determine the relationship, if any, which exists between these evaluative attitudes, aoademio ability, and academio achievement. Also, if it oan be established that signif­ icant relationships do exist between certain attitudes and ability and/or achievement, the writer hopes to deduce rather specific implications which may be helpful to teaohers and counselors who work with college freshmen. Chapter H will be devoted to a review of the research whioh seems most pertinent to the topics treated in the present study. Major findings concerning students' values, interests, and personal preferences will be 17 surveyed so as to indioate the relevance of the present investigation to this total area of human assessment. Chapter H Z will consist of an explanation of the setting of the present study, the methodology employed in choosing the samples, selecting and administering the instruments, organizing and analyzing the data, and de­ termining the most appropriate manner for presenting the findings. Chapter IV will contain the findings of the study. Each of the major hypotheses will he proven or disproven in terms of the statistical treatment of the data involved. Also in Chapter IV tangential findings and observations whioh appeared while pursuing the major questions of the study will he reported.

Chapter V will present implications of the findings of the study and a summary of the total enterprise. CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

This ohapter shall he ooncerned primarily with a review of studies concerned with expressed values as related to scholastic ability and acadejaio achievement, expressed interests as related to scholastic ability and academic achievement, and expressed needs as related to scholastic ability and academic achievement. Whenever possible, applicable studies involving the use of the instruments employed in the present study will be included*

An Orientation to Attitude Measurement Pioneer investigations of the relation of edu­ cational interests and abilities were conducted by S. L. Thorndike prior to World War I* By 1931 enough investi­ gations into the nature of human interests had been conducted that Fryer authored a book in whioh the findings were reviewed.1 The measurement of values, though, was not pursued systematically until the latter part of the twenties, and attempts to measure personality traits are even a more recent development*

1Douglas Fryer, The jTftrnftT,,fc of (Mew York: Henry Holt and Conpany, 1931J.

18 19 A survey’ of the literature reveals that much of the research in the areas of values, interests, and needs, especially as related to the educative process, has heen conducted in the last thirty years* However, educators and psychologists have heen concerned with the assessment of evaluative attitudes in one way or another since the first decade of the present century. This investigator would not presume to review all of the findings of the last five decades in the areas of evaluative attitudes. Inappropriateness, replication, and profusion of research studies would negate suoh an undertaking* Instead, the present chapter shall be confined to a consideration of the major findings concerning values, interests, and per­ sonal preferences (manifest needs) as they are related to academic ability and academic achievement* Special attention will be focused upon, though not restricted to, those studies whioh have employed the instruments used in the present study, viz., the Allport-Veraon-Lindzey Study of Values, the Kuder Preference Record, Personal, and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The studies included in the current discussion have been seleoted because they seem to be most relevant to the problems at hand; the rela­ tionships whioh may exist among evaluative attitudes, aoademio ability, and academic achievement. A major problem in understanding the nature and in­ fluence of evaluative attitudes has been, and still is, the definition of terms. Values, interests, and needs which are expressed by individuals are attitudes in the sense that they are mental or neural states of readiness which exert dynamic and di­ rective influence upon an individual’s response to objects, persons, or situations. Also, it is quite appropriate to employ the term evaluative because of the selective nature of all values, Interests, and/or expressed needs. No one individual values all objects or situations or persons. Neither does any one person express an interest in or a preference for all objects, situations, or persons. In this sense, an expression of values, interests, or need preferences is evaluative, selective. However, all values, interests, and preferences are attitudes in the sense that they are representations of an individual’s tendency to respond In a particular way to various objects, persons, or situations. Thus the use of the term evaluative attitudes seems fitting when referring generally to values, interests, and personal preferences. As to the distinction which should be made among ther terms values, interests, and pre­ ferences, other problems arise. Allport illustrates vividly the efforts which have been put forth to specify the nature of attitude, Interest, and value. He defines attitude as nA mental aptness and a motor set. Attitude connotes a neuropsyohio state of 21 readiness for mental and physical activity." 2 After re­ viewing attempts at definition which have been made by Cantril, Bogardus, Droba, Dewey et al.. Allport concludes that "Readlness-for-response is the genus proxlmum to whioh attitude belongs." 5 One must agree with Allport that "attitudes de­ termine for each individual what he will see and hear, what he will think and what he will do." ^Likewise, it seems sensible to assume that attitudes are potential determinants of behavior, that attitudes are aoquired, and that attitudes are highly individualistic, varying from person to person. When speaking of values Allport states that "subjective values are essentially the same as interests, except that they are more properly spoken of when the individual is mature and has reflected upon and organized his interests within a comprehensive and consistent system of thought and feeling#"5 This is the sense in whioh the

2Gordon W. Allport, "Attitudes," Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Carl Murchison (Woroester: Clark university Press, 1935), 798-844. ^Ebid.. 806. 4Ibid. SjHid. 22 term values will be used throughout the present discussion* An examination of the nature of the items included in the Study of Values, the Kuder Preference Record, Personal, and the Edwards Personal Preference Sohedule reveals that variant degrees of generality and specificity are present in the statements included in these inventories* Two examples of the types of statements whioh constitute the Study of Values are as follows: Part I: 17* The aim of the churches at the present time should be (a) to bring out altruistic and charitable tendencies; (b) to encourage spiritual worship and a sense of communion with the highest. Part IX: 9* At an evening discussion with intimate friends of your own sex, are you more interested when you talk about a. the meaning of life. b. developments in soienoe* o. literature. * d. socialism and social amelioration*c It seems that the statements which make up the Study of Values are, as Allport states, broad aspects of human interest whioh reflect an individual*s generalized conclusions concerning life. This is the sense in which the term values is used in the present disoussion* A striking oontrast can be noted by observing olosely thi nature of the statements included in the Kuder Preference Record, Personnel* The statements on the Suder

^Gordon W. Allport. Philip E. Vernon, and Gardner Lindsey, Study of Values (Revised Edition; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 193T)Y*4, 8* 23 Record are far more specific* The individual is asked to choose the most-liked and the least-liked statement from a group of three statements* To illustrate, when answering one should ask himself, "Would I rather?" and "I would least like to*" a* Read ahout the jungles of Africa h* Read various people's ideas of how to make a better world c* Read about what various well-known, people do in their spare time

a* Write the society pages of a newspaper b. Write newspaper editorials about needed local improvements c. Write feature articles about interesting local people r Interests, in the sense that the Ruder Preference Record, Personal, seeks to measure them, are types of acceptance-rejection reactions to hypothetical human ac­ tivities* The statements which constitute the Kuder Scale are more mundane, less abstract, than those which appear on the Study of Values* Interests in this sense have been explained by Fryer as "estimates of pleasure and displeasure Q when stimulated by an interest situation*" Manifest needs are defined by Murray et al*, in

Explorations in Personality* "A need is a construct ••• which stands for a force — & force which organizes

^G* Frederic Ruder, Kuder Preference Record* Personal* Form AH (Chicago: Science Research Associates, inc.,

8Fryer, 16* 24 perception, apperception, intellection, conation and action in such a way as to transform in a certain direction an existing, unsatisfying situation*1^ Needs in this sense may be provoked by either internal or external processes. Needs may involve emotions, they may be illusory, they may represent projective attachments of one’s desires to long- range suitable or unsuitable goals. But above all needs as here construed mean the reactions manifested by an individual while encountering either physical, social, or psychological presses of his environment. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) consists of statements which assumedly tap the manifest needs of individuals. Items in this scale are even more directly a reflection of the individual’s feelings toward self than either the Allport or the Kuder Scale. Each item in the EPPS is a direct assertion introduced by the personal pronoun I. The test-taker must choose one of two possible statements as being more representative of himself. Ex­ amples are as follows: 22. A I like to praise someone X admire. B I like to feel free to do what I want to do.

23. A I like to be the oenter of attention in a group. B I like my friends to make a fuss over me when I am hurt or sick.10

9Henry A. Murray et al.. Explorations in Personality (New York: Oxford UhiversitylPress, 1938), 12lPl2$. 10Allen L. Edwards, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1953) • 25 In brief, the investigator accepts the operational definitions of values, interests, and manifest needs which have been associated with the instruments employed in this study. It was decided to employ instruments which have been carefully prepared and scientifically tested in terms of reliability and validity. The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey, the Euder, and the Edwards inventories are among the most reputable instruments available for the measurement of values, interests, and manifest needs. Since the data are gathered primarily by using these inventories, it is necessary to interpret the results in the sense that the authors of the inventories intended. The intentions of the authors, it seems, could be suocinctly stated as follows. Values in terms of the Study of Values means broad categories of an individual's concerns, categories which are so broadly conceived that many specific interests may be encompassed within each category. Because of the expansiveness of these categories and because of the ma­ turity and thoughtfulness required to conceive these broader aspects of life, the term values is applied to the categories. According to the Study of Values an individual*s values may be distributed relatively among six categories:

Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic, Social, Politioal, and Religious.^

^Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey, 3. 26 Interests as measured by the Kuder Preference Record means concern for or lack of oonoern for activities which involve or emanate from interrelations among human beings. It should be kept in mind that vocational in­ terests or interests in educational pursuits are not focused upon in this scale. Interests in this sense means basically desire to move toward or to move away from other humans. The five categories of this scale are: A. Preference for being active in groups; B. Preference for familiar and stable situations; C. Preference for working with ideas; D* Preference for avoiding conflict; E. Preference for directing or influencing others.3*2 The statements of personal preferences which appear on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule are based on H. A. Hurray's list of manifest needs.^ These statements are more directly applicable to an individual's feelings toward himself than those which appear on the Study of Values or the Kuder Preference Record. The relative em­ phasis of the statements inoluded in these three scales is, it seems, justification for the use of the three terms, values, interests, and personal preferences.

Values. Scholastic Ability, and Academic Achievement As recently as 1953 Trow pointed out that "a direct attack on the problem of values has been made by relatively

1%uder, 1-2. ^^Hurray gt al., 142-146. 27 few investigators." ^ Of the investigations which have been conducted the Allport-Vernon Study of Values or an instrument constructed along similar lines has served as the means of measurement. It seems that the categories of values which appear on the Study of Values is the nearest thing to a generally aooepted system of values categories which have been employed in controlled inves­ tigations. No generally accepted system of categories is in existence. This becomes evident as other attempts to assess human values are noted. Shorr stated in 1953 that "empirical evidence of the importance of value systems as an organizing and motivating factor in behavior has been well aooepted." Shorr points out that the Allport and Vernon Study of Values utilizes relative scales of a forced-choice type and this results automatically in some of the six scores on the scale being high and some of the scores being low. It was this characteristic of the Study of Values which led Shorr to construot a new scale. Ylhen discussing the basis for his new scale he states:

^%illiam Clark Trow, "The Value Conoept in Educational Psychology," Journal of Educational Psychology. December, 1953, 449-461.

Joseph E. Shorr, "The Development of A Test to Measure the Intensity of Values," The Journal of Educational Psychology. 2LIV (May, 1953), 266-274. 28 It Is quite possible for the high value of a generally apathetic person to be less intense and effective than the lowest value of a person in whom all values are prominent and dynamic . . . It was felt that this defect could be avoided by measuring the intensity of each scale of values practicable maximum of intensity to a practicable maximum of intensity*10 Writing in 1950 Cattell, Heist, Heist, and Stewart state that "it is disconcerting that psychologists have not found any more objective way of measuring an indi­ vidual's attitudes and interest than by asking him how strong they are."1^ As early as 1937 Lurie devised a test-blank based on Spranger's system of categorizing individuals according to types of values. He attempted to determine stable categories for the classification of personality with regard to value-types by faotor analysis of 144 items on his scale after administering the scale to 203 freshmen and sophomores at the Uhiversity of Chicago. Lurie con­ cluded: "It Is believed by the writer that a more plausible and self-oonsistent system of personality classification can be founded on the four types derived

16Ibid.. 267.

17r . B. Cattell, A* B. Heist, P. S. Heist, and R. a. Stewart, "The Objeotlve Measurement of Bynamio Traits," Kg^fra|lonal and Psychological Measurement. X (1950), 29 by factor analysis than on the six types which Spranger developed by intuitive analysis of experience." It is evident that psychologists, educators, and sociologists have become particularly concerned with the problem of assessing individuals* values. It is likewise evident that variant techniques have been employed in the attempts to insure that value assessment is conducted more objectively. The greatest impetus to value measure* ment, though, seems to have evolved from the work of Spranger and Allport and Vernon. In 1928 Eduard Spranger*s Lebensformen was trans* lated into English, and psychologists in this country became interested in his thesis that the personalities of men are most dearly revealed in their evaluative attitudes or values. A Study of Values, the instrument whioh is used In the present study, although it has undergone revision as of 1951, was first prepared for publication by G. W. Allport and P. E. Vernon in 1951. This instrument is based upon Spranger*s classification of "types of men" and it rep­ resents an attempt to test empirically the conclusions which Spranger reached by rational analysis. The basic struoture of the values scale has remained unchanged since 1951. The

findings whioh are reported below indicate several ways in

^®ffalter A. Lurie, "A Study of Spranger* s Value-Types by the Method of Factor Analysis," Journal of Soolal Psychology. VIII (1937), 17-37. 30 whioh the scores on the Study of Values have been related to educational problems. Cantril, Allport, and Reinhart?-9 found for 150 students in sociology at Dartmouth College a coefficient of correlation of +.25 +.06 between college grades and the theoretical category of the Allport-Vernon Scale. Pintner^ applied the Study of Values to a class in mental testing and found the following rank order co­ efficients of correlation between grades and values; social, +.46, religious, +.05, theoretical, -.01, political, -.14, aesthetic, -.15, economic, -.16. It is important to note that the grades in this course in mental testing can hardly be considered representative since they were deter­ mined on the b&3is of adeptnes3 in handling people in testing situations as well as knowledge of intelligence testing. The +.46 correlation between grades and social values may have resulted from the fact that ability to work with people was a conditioning factor in the determination of the grades for the course. Another study conducted by Pintner^at Columbia corroborated the original findings of Allport and Vernon as

i9H. Cantril and G. W. Allport, "Recent Applications of the Study of Values," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XXVIII (1933-1334), Z&S-ZTS'.

£0r . Pintner, "A Comparison of Interests, Abilities, and Attitudes," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XXVII (1933), 351-357. % b l d .. 352. 31 to tlie relative scores of men and women on the categories of the Study of Values. Using 187 students in a class of educational psychology, Pintner found that men scored higher than women in theoretical, economic, and political areas, whereas, women scored higher than the men in aesthetio, social, and religious categories. When comparing the Allport scores with intelligence scores, using the 187 students mentioned ahove, Pintner used the Teachers College General Examination, which he describes as a thorough intelligence test. The corre­ lations between the students' ranking on the intelligence test and their ranking on the six interests (values) are as follows: Intelligence and social Interests, +.38; Intelligence and theoretical interests, +.24; Intelligence and aesthetio Interests, -.08; Intelligence and religious interests, -.05; Intelligence and political interests, -.28; Intelligence and eoonomio interests, -.41* Rothney22used 306 eleventh-grade boys in seven high schools in an investigation of the relation of values scores to academic achievement. His values inventory was a revision of the Allport-Vernon, an inventory whioh he de­ signed for use with high school students. By correlating the test scores with teachers' marks in English, Latin, French, Geometry, Algebra, he secured an average of the four

22J. W. U. Rothney, "Evaluative Attitudes and Academic Suoeess," Journal of Educational Psychology. XXVII (1936), 292—298. 32 of these, over a period of one year. The coefficients of correlation between the various values scores and the average of the first four academic subjects ranged from -.13 to +.18. Rothney oonoludes that: "The revised Study of Values seems to have very little practical value in the forecasting of academic achievement."2^ 24 Duffy and Crissy experimented with 108 freshmen at Sarah Lawrence College and found that the scores on the Allport-Vemon, when combined as a multiple regression equation, yielded a correlation of .34 with teachers* ratings on academic achievement made at the end of the freshmen year. These same ratings, or average grades, had a correlation of only .29 with intelligence test scores (A. C. E.). A correlation of .28 between average grades and values scores when intelligence was partialled out (by an approximation formula) indicated that the relation­ ship between college grades and values scores did not depend upon the common factor of intelligence. These in­ vestigators concluded that although no statistically significant relationships were found between grades and the scores, it appeared probable that there was a tendency for

^^1. Duffy and W. J. E. Crissy, "Evaluation Attitudes as Related to Vocational Interests and Academic Achievement," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XXXV (1940), &26-245. 33 good students to have higher theoretical and aesthetic value scores, and lower economic and political values scores, than poor students. Schaefer25conducted a study at Reed College, using 51 sophomores, in which he sought to find the correlations between scores on the Study of Values and scores on the seven sections of the American Council on Education College Sophomore Test. The divisions of the A. C* E. test are as follows: Intelligence, Literature, Foreign Literature, Fine Arts, History, General Science, and General Culture. The significant coefficients of correlation obtained were as follows: Intelligence with the theoretic value (r * .21) and with the political value (r * -.60); Literature with the economic value (r * -.47) and with the aesthetio value (r * .58); Foreign Literature with the economic value (r a -.37) and with the aesthetio value (r * .58); Fine Arts with the economic value (r * -.28) and with the aesthetic value (r » .47); History with the eoonomic value (r a -.37) and with the aesthetic value (r * .37); General Science with the theoretical value (r * .31); General Culture with the eoonomic value (r * -.42) and with the aesthetio value (r * .43). Sohaefer concludes that scores on certain sections of the A. C. E. test oan be predicted more accurately from oertain value scores than from

25B. R. Sohaefer, "The Validity and Utility of the Allport-Vernon Study of Values Test," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XJQL (1936), 419-422. 34

Intelligence soores. Ford?® employed the Study of Values as part of the entrance routine for 176 applicants for Teaohers College in September, 1932. He concluded that: "There are no signif­ icant sex differences and correlations between test soores and other criteria such as intelligence, size of high school, religion, etc., are invariably low." McGinnles and Bowles**7flashed 24 pictures of little- known personalities, whioh they gleaned from magazines, before 12 subjeots, organizing the picture exposure and associated assignment of a value term (those found on the Allport-Vernon) so as to test the hypothesis that persons learn more quickly to identify those pictures whioh have been associated with the observer's own dominant values* These authors conclude that: "In general, the observers fixated more readily faces symbolizing their highest values than they did faces representing their lowest values." Although this can not be oonstrued to mean that value preferences are a part of mental ability or actual adeptness in learning, it does seem that both the ability to learn and actual learning may be conditioned by value preferences*

2®o. A* Ford, "The Allport-Vemon Study of Values Applied to 465 Entering Freshmen," Psychological Bulletin. XBC (1933), 557* S7E* lloGinnies and W. Bowles, "personal Values as Determinants of Perceptual Fixation," Journal of Personality* XVIII (1949), 224-235* Duffy and Crissey28 employed the Allport-Yernon Study of Values as a basis for determining evaluative attitudes as related to vocational interests and as re­ lated to academic achievement* Also, these authors sought to identify basic factors present in values soores and to determine the relationship of values to vocational interests, academic achievement, and intelligence* These authors oonolude: "It will be observed that academic standing, as indicated by the average of the grades made at the end of the freshman year, shows no significant correlation with any of the individual values scores."29 Similar findings have been reported by Rothney and by Langlie. We may observe also that these oollege grades do not correlate very highly with intelligence test soores. Other comments whioh these writers make concerning their findings seem especially worthy of note: While no one of the separate values soores shows any significant relationship to average oollege grades, the six values soores, when oombined in a multiple-regression equation, yield a correlation of *34 with oollege grades. These same oollege grades have a correlation of only .29 with intelligence test soores (A. C. E«). A correlation of .26 between college grades and values soores when intelligence is partialled out indioates that the relationship between oollege grades and values scores does not depend upon the oommon factor of intelligence.

28Duffy and Grissey. QQ Ibid.. 243. 36 Though, no statistically significant relationships were found between grades end the separate values scores, our own findings are consistent with those of other investigators in suggesting that good students are more likely than poor students to have high theoretical and aesthetic values soores and low economic and political scores. Some of the most interesting relationships between values soores and academic achievement were found in the relationship between the various values scores and the election of, and success in, a given field of study. Students of biology and physical soienoes, for example, have higher theoretical values scores than those in other fields of study, and the most successful students in these fields have rnuoh higher theoretical values scores than the less successful* The number of Individuals registered in the various oourses was, however, too small to justify the use of statistical techniques to determine the significance of the differences whioh appeared. Factor analysis revealed three factors present in the values scores of the Allport-Vernon test. These factors could be oalled: (a) a "Philistine" factor, (b) a factor in Interest in People, and (o) a Theoretioal factor. It is to be noted that these factors correspond with three of the four factors reported by Lurie in his factor analysis of another test based upon the same six categories of value as the Allport-Vernon test, and that they correspond also with three of the four factors reported by Thurstone in hie factor analysis of the men? s form of the Strong Vocational Interest Blanks The latter fact, no doubt, aooounis for tne correlations reported between values scores and vocational interest scores. Our three factors described above showed certain significant correlations with vocational interest scores but yielded no significant correlations with oollege grades or intelligence test scores.*0

■ 839 The work of Corey®1 is significant, it seems, since he found a lack of relationship between attitude ques­ tionnaire soores and overt behavior. It is obvious that the evaluative attitudes expressed by students are signif­ icant only to the extent that they presage behavior. That is, the validity of attitude questionnaires such as the Allport-Vemon and therefore the worth of such scales in predicting achievement or in providing other insights into students* behavior is dependent upon the relationship between overt behavior and soores on the inventories. The way a person acts over a period of time is a reliable and valid indication of his attitudes. Corey has pointed out a cruoial problem in attitude measurement by indicating the lack of relationship between scores on attitude in­ ventories and actual behavior. The studies mentioned above represent several pertinent efforts to determine the relationship of students values as related to intellectual achievement and/or in­ tellectual ability. Other findings whioh seem somewhat less relevant to the present study are indicated below. Dilley became concerned over the question, what values do teacher-education students hold? He devised a soale to measure the values held by these students on the

®1Stephen M. Corey, "Professed Attitudes and Actual Behavior," The Journal of Bduoational Psychology. 2XVUI (1937), 271^56. 38 thesis that by gaining such insight into the value systems of prospective teachers eventually this information would prove helpful in the counseling and guidance of college freshmen. Dilley used 356 students who were enrolled in a teacher-education program, comparing their scores with those of engineering students. A conclusion drawn by Dilley whioh seems appropriate to the present problems is as follows: Those distinguishing personal values which are characteristic of college students who enter a teacher-education program include the following: (1) Desire for contacts with children and/or adolescents; and [2l Desire for opportunities to help other people.53 Cohen constructed a scale in which he so tight to measure the aesthetio value independently of any other variable. The correlation between Cohen*s Aesthetic Soale and the aesthetic category of the Allport-Vernon was -.32 +.07. Cohen maintains this is actually a positive correlation since a low score on the Cohen Soale indicates a highly aesthetio attitude.33It seems to this writer that the findings have not been explained fully enough in terms of a better understanding of students.

Pintner and Forlano compared the scores made by 240 university students on the Allport-Vernon Study of Values

g8Ibid.. 279. 55 J. B. Cohen, "A Soale for the Measurement of Attitude Toward the Aesthetio Value.1* Journal of Psvcholoay. XII (1941), 75-79. 39 with their responses on the Thurstone Personality Schedule in an attempt to discover any relationship between emotional instability, or neuroticism, and the individuals1 patterns of interests. No clear-cut patterns were found although "certain trends in certain groups seemed logically consistent." 34

Interests. Scholastic Ability, and Academic Achievement An individual is said to have an interest in an object or an activity when the object or activity causes him to have a pleasant feeling for, or a concern for, the object or activity. In brief, certain events, objects, or situations tend to be more appealing than others i.e., interests are human preferences. Birge highlights one of the major problems in interest measurement by stating that "it is well recognized that there is not a neoessary correspondence between a person’s conduct and his report of his conduct. This situation is generally acknowledged in the field of in­ terest and personality measurement."33 However, in a study

34R. Pintner and G. Forlano, "Dominant Interests and Personality Characteristics," Journal of General Psychology. 231 (1939), 251-860.

3&william R. Birge, "Preferences and Behavior Ratings of Dominance," Educational and Psychological Measurement. X (1950), 392-394* 40 which Birge conducted to determine correspondence between conduct and verbal report certain tendencies were found. He used students who were rated as highly dominant, that is, "show the greatest assertiveness and ability to in­ fluence others in group situations," and "students rated as lowest in dominance." Using 92 students (47 in the high dominant group and 45 in the low dominant group) critical ratios were performed on high and low dominance ratings and scores on the Kuder Preferences Record, Personal. Birge reports that the highly dominant person tends to differ from the low dominance ratings as follows: (1) He prefers to take the lead and be in the center of activities involving people. (S) He prefers activities involving the use of authority and power. (3) He prefers activities ordinarily chosen by people trying to make a good impression. In view of these findings and the method employed there apparently is some basis for belief that the verbal report, i.e., expressed estimate of an individual's own behavior tendencies, is related to the individual's behavior as rated by others. However, it is well to keep in mind that the author of the Kuder Record does not intend that the soale measure actual behavior. Writing in 1949 Mosier and Kuder state that "it may be noted that the scales are based on recorded preferences. There is no implication intended that the scales measure 41 actual facility in the areas described.1*5® If the Kuder Scales are related to actual behavior or if the scales are related to the variables included in the Edwards PPS such relationships remain to be definitely established. A study in whioh the scales of the Study of Values and the scales of the Kuder, Personal, were compared will be re­ ported in this chapter. The research which has been conducted on the Kuder Preference Record, Personal, is rather meager, although much work has been done with the Kuder Preference Record, Vocational. Por this reason several of the studies re­ viewed below involve the use of the Kuder, Vocational. It has been assumed for years that educational progress is dependent upon a oertain amount of interest and investigators have attempted to establish a definite relationship between interests and abilities and achieve­ ment. If definite relationships could be established between individuals’ interests and abilities and between individuals' interests and achievements, it seems that the task of education and guidance oould be more adequately carried out. Thorndike conducted the first systematic in­ vestigations involving interests and abilities.

3®Mary P. Mosier and G. Frederic Kuder, "Personal Preference Differences among Occupational Groups," Journal of Applied Psycho logy. XXXIII (1949), 231. 42 In 1917 Thorndike ®teported a correlation of ,89 between interests and abilities. Interests In Thorndike*s study meant preference for a particular course of study. He bad 344 oollege students rank courses as to their relative appeal. Also, he had the students rank their ability to achieve in eaoh of the courses. The interest rating correlated .89 with the ratings of ability. Four years later Thorndike^® reported a study in which he used grades as the measure of ability. Although the product-moment correlation between Interests and ability was reported as .40, Thorndike suggests that an aotual correlation of near .70 probably existed. He contended that errors in grading no doubt accounted for the difference between the expects and the computed correlations. In 1944 Thorndike®9used another procedure for con­ trolling the masking influenoe on the interest-achievement relationship of individual differences in aptitude. In

37 E. L. Thorndike, Jr., "Early Interests - their Prominence and Relation to Abilities," School and Soolety. V (1917), 178-179. ®®E. L. Thorndike, Jr., nThe Correlation between Interests and Abilities in College Courses," Psychological Review. XXVIII (1921), 374-376. ®9E. L. Thorndike, Jr., "Interests and Abilities," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXVIII (1944), 43-52. 45 correlating interest scores and school grades for a group of individuals, it was found that individuals with high interest in a subject may be able to earn only an average grade because of limited aptitudes. Whereas, persons with higher aptitudes coupled with strong extrinsic motives may earn high grades despite low interest in the particular subject area. Thorndike avoided this masking factor in aptitude-interest relationship by finding for each indivi­ dual separately the correlation between the rank order of his interests and the rank order of his achievements (or abilities, as he called the estimates his subjects made) in seven school subjects. These subjects were mathematics, history, literature, science, music, drawing, and other handwork. The median intra-individual correlation between interests and achievement (abilities) for 444 subjects, including persons from both investigations, was .89. But since Thorndike secured his rank-orders on both interests and achievements (abilities) by asking his college subjects to rate themselves at present and in retrospect for ele­ mentary and high school periods, the possibility is open for a "halo" influence to inflate his correlations spuri­ ously.

Strong emphasizes the importance of interest measurement: "A man's abilities and capacities are impor­ tant, but not until it is possible to measure his interests, as to type and intensity, will it be possible to prophesy the 44 40 extent to which he will utilize his abilities." An in­ teresting analogy is provided by Strong which vividly illustrates the importance of interests in human activity:

The relationships among abilities, interests, and achievement may be likened to a motor boat with a motor and a rudder. The motor (abilities) determines how fast the boat can go, the rudder ' (interests) determines which way the boat goes. Achievement may be thought of as the distance traveled in a straight line in a given interval of time, resulting from operation of both motor and rudder. 42 In a study of genius in children, Wyman concluded:

"Intellectual interest is a very potent factor in determing achievement. But the question arises, must a person be interested in what he is doing in order to achieve success in it, or is it the ability to succeed that gives the in­ terest? In which direction does the causal relation lie?

We find that the most successful child is highly intelligent and highly interested. Some children who are highly inter­ ested have succeeded; and, some with lower intelligence, and not a high degree of success, are highly interested.

The answer to the question, then, is that a child must be interested to achieve success, the greater the interest and the higher the intelligence, the greater the success . . .

40 £. K. Strong, Jr., Vocational Interests of Men and Women (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 194^7* 14-• Z*'1Ibid.. 17. ^ 2 J. B. Wyman, "Test of Intellectual, Social, and Activity Interests," in Terman, L. M. Genetic Studies of Genius (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1^25)» 435. 45

and not that ability to succeed produces the interest."

Stability of Interests To provide guidance or instruction in terms of interests is to assume that interests are fairly permanent. It is important to consider the permanenoe or lack of permanence of students9 interests. E. K. Strong, Jr. pointed out that "guidance in terms of interest assumes that interests are fairly permanent." It has been shown that the Strong Vocational Interest Test scores "are surprisingly stable, the average correlation over a ten-year period being .75. Interests change somewhat between 15 and 25 years of age, one-third of the change occuring between 15.5 and 16.5 years, one- third between 16.5 and 13 years, and the remainder between 18 and 23 years."43 The median test-re-test correlation is .77. Thus, when employed with 145 young college students who were tested and re-tested 15 months apart the results indicate that for young adults as a group "Interests are fairly permanent."44

430soar J. Kaplan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Vocational Quidanoe. I (New York: The PhilosopiiiokL ^Library, 1948), 605. 44john W. Reid, "Stability of Measured Kuder Interests in Young Adults," Journal of Educational Research. XLV (December, 1951), 7-311. 46

Wright and Scarborough conducted a study designed to estimate the stability of Kuder Preference Record scores of Depauw University students over a two-year period. Kuder scores obtained at the time of admission to the university were correlated with scores obtained at the time the inventory was taken again as sophomores or as seniors. The coefficients indicated a rather high degree of relationship in the pattern of scores. The Kuder scores obtained as a freshman remain relatively stable through the senior year of oollege.4^ There can be little question of the assumption that the attitudes possessed by an individual concerning a particular endeavor condition the degree of effectiveness one could exhibit in performing that endeavor. The attitudes students have toward school work have been the subject of many teacher!s and parentis oonoerns. However, if the interests of college students are momentary and vacillating, they are of little use for personality study or for education prognois. If, as seems more likely, they show initial variability but possess a considerable degree of permanence, they are worthy of consideration. In commenting upon the lack of stability in small children as opposed to the firmness which adult interests

45John 0. Wright and Barron B. Scarborough. "Relation­ ship of the Interests of College Kreshmen to their Interests as Sophomores and as Seniors," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XVIII, No. 1 (1958J, 47 appear to have, Symonds makes the following statement: "Between these two extreme periods the interests are being molded. At first the broad trends are laid down, and interest becomes inclined toward books, people* mechanical objects, animals, plants, sports, etc. Gradually even these become specialized, so that normally the period of development is also the period for the specialization of interests. Cross conducted a study specifically to determine if scores on the Kuder can be faked. He used the Vocational Blank. Conclusion was that a student can fake his scores nif he desires to fake. In the properly motivated guidance situation, this problem does not arise.

Interest and Academic Achievement Phillips and Osborne employed the Kuder Preference Record, Vocational, The Ohio State Psychological Exami­ nation and oollege marks in oomparing interests, ability, and achievement. No significant relationships between the several Kuder Preference Scales and school marks were found.

46Peroival Symonds as cited in Burgemeister, B. B., "The Permanenoe of Interests of Women College Students," Archives of Psychology. No. 255 (1940). *70rrin H. Cross, "A Study of Peking on the Kuder Preference Record," Educational and Psychological Measure­ ment. X (1950), 271-277. 48 The authors conclude that college marks could not be pre­ dicted accurately from scores on the Kuder Preference Record. Also, Kuder Preference Record scores for students on scholastic probation do not differ significantly from soores made by students not on probation. Only one finding reported by Phillips and Osborne seems pertinent to the present study. It was found that the high scholastic aptitude group, as determined by the 0. S. P. E. scored significantly higher on the literaiy subtest of the Kuder Preference Record than on any other. The present data show no significant relation­ ship between the several Kuder Preference Record scales and weighted grade; i.e., for the subjects of this study, college marks oould not be accurately predicted from scores on the Kuder Preference Record. A slight positive relationship was found between scores on the Literary scale of the Kuder Pre­ ference Record and soholastic aptitude, while Social Service, Mechanical and Computational soores seem to show low but negative relationship to scholastic aptitude. Kuder Preference Record soores for students on scholastio probation do not differ significantly from scores made by students not on probation. Numerically, the mean percentiles of non­ probation students are higher than those of pro­ bation students in Business Administration on those sub-tests that are typically high for students of this school. That the difference is not statistically significant makes additional comment largely speculative. There is, however, suffioent intimation that "highness” on these 49 typically high sub-scores may relate to factors underlying successful work in this school so as to warrant more extensive study. 48 Phillips and Osborne report a correlation coefficient of 4 .38 between Literary interest soores and the Ohio State Psychological Test, Total Score. Crosb^® sought to determine the relationship between interest, as measured by the Kuder, Vocational, and achievement in various fields of college work. He selected 30 students from a group of 140 sophomores in the College of Agriculture and Home Economics at Cornell University whose soores in Scientific Interest on the Preference Record exceeded the 90 percentil and a corresponding number whose soores placed them below the 10 percentile. By comparing means for the groyps in terms of grades and interest scores, he found that there is a positive re­ lationship between interest in certain scales of the Preference Reoord and achievement in some school subjects. Bendig conducted a study designed to see whether the Kuder will distinguish among students receiving the speoial educational programs that result in their being graduated as Honors majors from their department of major

4e8W. S. Phillips and R. T. Osborne, "A Note on the Relationship of the Kuder Preference Reoord Scales to College Marks, Scholastio Aptitude and Other Variables,1* Educational and Psychological Measurement. IX (1949) ,331-337. ^Richard C. Crosby, "Scholastio Achievement and Measured Interests," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXVH (1943), 101-103. 50

study. Hie concluded that "the scales Included in the Kuder Preference Record appear to he moderately valid in dis­ criminating departmental differences in interest patterns among the academically superior and relatively homogeneous groups of Honors Majors inoluded in this study." 50 Hake and Ruedisili investigated the value of the Kuder Preference Reoord in predicting the first-semester grades made by freshmen at the University of Wisconsin. These writers conclude that "in general, it seems likely that interests, as measured by the Kuder Preference Reoord, are a relatively minor factor in predicting college achievement." The Literary scale was found to have the highest positive correlations with school marks, while the Mechanical and Sooial Service scales were inversely related to school marks.5i Bolanovich and Goodman compared the various scales of the Kuder, Vocational, with final grade averages for a course in psychology. The highest correlation was .18 for the Computational key with final grade average. These writers conclude that "on the basis of the correlations with total grade averages, the Kuder Preference Reoord does

50a . W. Bendig, "Validity of Kuder Differences Among Honors Majors," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XVII (1957), 593-598. 51Dorothy Terry Hake and C. H. Ruedisili, "Predicting Subject Grades of Liberal Arts Preshmen with the Kuder Pre­ ference Record," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXIII (1949), 553-557. 51 not appear to be a promising selection device for pre­ dicting course achievement of female engineering Cadettes. It does, however, show some promise as a device for eliminating those who would be likely to drop out before go completion of the course.”

Needs. Scholastic Ability and Academic Achievement Manifest needs involve feelings which an individual has toward self and others. Actual needs are inferred from the expressions of individuals1 personal preferences. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule is designed to measure fifteen relative preferences areas. The basic assumption underlying the instrument is that each of the areas of preference is associated with a particular need which is present to some degree in all normal individuals. In other words, the EPPS is a carefully prepared way of objectifying inferences about needs. The EPPS is a recent instrument, first appearing in 1954, but already it has been used in several investigations. Some of the studies involving this instrument, as well as other studies whioh seem pertinent to the present topic, will be presented below.

5%)aniel J. Bolanovioh and Charles H. Goodman, ”A Study of the Kuder Preference Reoord," Educational and Psychological Measurement. IV (1944), 315-326. 52 Trumbull53 points out that throughout the history of psychological theory the existence of certain relation­ ships between personality traits and intelligence have been implied* Ability tests are based upon the premise that two individuals who have lived in the same environment will benefit dissimilarly from that environment. The individual who is able to reproduce more selective aspects of the environment is considered more intelligent. This seems suggestive that environmental situations conducive to the development of certain mental factors are likewise conducive to the development of certain personality traits. Calvin and others5^investigated the relationship between anxiety, as measured by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, and ability, as measured by the Weohseler Adult Scale (both total and subtest soores were used). Negative correlations were found. In other words, this study reveals that intelligence does not relate with anxiety. Ximber5 5 investigated, among other things, the re­ lationship between personality adjustment and intelligence.

53R. Trumbull, nA Study of Relationships Between Factors of Personality and Intelligence," Journal of Sooial Psychology. X X X m i (1953), 172-173. °*Allen D. Calvin and Others, "A Further Investigation of the Relationship Between Manifest Anxiety and Intelli­ gence,” The Journal of Consulting Psychology. Tnc (1955), 280-282. 55J. A. Morris Kimber, "The Insight of College Students into the Items on a Personality Test." Educational Psychological Measurement. “VII (1947), 411-420. 53

The scales used were the California Test of Personality and the Army Alpha Examination. He found little relationship between personality adjustment and intelligence. Oebhart and Hoyt®® attempted to determine whether students of different ability levels exhibited different personality needs and whether over-and under-achiever*s personality correlates were the same at various ability levels. Two hundred forty men at Kansas State, twelve groups of twenty each, were used in this study. These findings of the Oebhart and Hoyt study whioh seem relevant to the present investigation are: High ability students score significantly higher than low ability students on the achievement, exhibition, autonomy, dominance, and consistency scales of the EPPS and signif­ icantly lower on the deference, order, abasement, and nurtance scales. It was found that two interactions existed between ability and achievement levels; one on the heterosexuality scale and one on the consistency scale. On the basis of their findings Oebhart and Hoyt hypothesize three different patterns of overaohievement: (a) overachievement associated with drive to complete (achievement); (b) overaohievement associated with a drive to organize or plan (order); and (o) overaohievement

Gary Gebhart and Donald P. Hoyt, "Personality Needs of Under and Overachieving Freshmen,n Journal of Applied Psychology. U (1958), 125-128. 54 associated with intellectual curiosity (lntraception)• Two patterns of underachievement are likewise hypothesized: that associated with a need for variety (change), wherein academic studies may appear boring and routine; and that associated with sooial motives (affiliation, nurturanoe), wherein friendship may be placed above scholarship. The authors conclude: "The fact that the soales involved do not interoorrelate significantly supports the notion that several relatively distinct patterns, rather than a single pattern, are involved."57 Owens and Johnson5®identified some distinctive characteristics and modes of adjustment of samples of collegiate underachievers, normal achievers, and over­ achievers. These investigators administered the MMPI, the Minnesota Personality Soale, and a speoially devised per­ sonal check list to 164 male freshmen in Engineering at Iowa State College. Item analyses among the three groups revealed that it was possible to isolate certain measurable personality traits peculiar to the underachievers. Oon- spioious among these traits was sooial extroversion; undersoil!evers were characterized by good adjustment and high interest in social activities. This finding is

57Ibld., 128. 50w. A. Owens end Wilma C. Johnson, ?Some Measured Personality Traits of Collegiate Underachievers," Journal of Educational Psychology. EL (1949), 41-46. 55 similar to the hypothesis which Gebhart and Hoyt provided concerning underachievement because of sooial motives.

Summary Values, interests, and manifest needs are referred to as evaluative attitudes in this study* Definitions are formulated for values, interests, and needs consistent with the instruments used for their measurement. The measurement of evaluative attitudes actually becomes a matter of asking people questions about situations, issues, or feelings. The responses which are elicited are assumed to reflect the respondent's evaluative attitudes. Relative scores are assigned to eaoh of the responses, and categories of interest, value, or need are determined. Investigators agree that attitudes condition and act as motivating factors in behavior, however, efforts to measure direotly the true values possessed by individuals have been somewhat inadequate. The measurement of atti­ tudes has been confined primarily to what individuals believe about themselves or what they say they believe about themselves. Actual behavior, if it could be observed under multifarious conditions and recorded accurately, might well be a more valid lndioe of evaluative attitudes. Evidence seems to indloate that certain attitudes are positively related to intelligence and achievement, but conclusive findings concerning these relationships can not at this time be cited because of the failure to replicate studies and the appearance of contradictory findings. Much more research is needed concerning the relationships of certain patterns of attitudes to scholastio ability and achievement. CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES OP THE STUDY

Since the understanding and significance of research findings are dependent upon the procedures in­ volved in arriving at the findings, this chapter is devoted to a description of the setting of the study, the population samples, the instruments employed, and the manner in which the data were gathered and treated.

The Setting of the Study The setting of the present study is the campus of The Ohio State University during the academic year 1958- 1959. Activities performed in connection with the investigation involved students who were enrolled in the College of Education with the intention of becoming ele­ mentary teachers. The Ohio State University is a state-supported institution which is looated near the center of the state. Although the student body is drawn from throughout the Uhited States as well as from foreign countries, the major portion of the student population comes from the state of Ohio. Many students are residents of the central Ohio area, especially Columbus and Eranklin County. Also, such 57 58 cities as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, and Lima contribute heavily to tbe student body of the College of Education. Students from all socioeconomio levels frequently may be found in the College of Education at the university, but it seems that the students in the College of Eduoation are predominantly from middle and upper-middle socioeoonomio backgrounds. At The Ohio State University the first required course in the College of Education is termed an Introduction to the Study of Education. The description of this course as it appears in the College of Education Bulletin for the academic year 1958-1959 is as follows: 408. Introduction to the Study of Education. Three credit hours. One Quarter. Autumn, Winter, Spring. Required in the teacher eduoation programs in all fields (except Fine Arts and Music) of freshman and of students transferring into eduoation with less than ninety hours of credit. Students are required to enroll, in this course in the earliest possible quarter.-1 This course, Education 408, is handled by the faculty members of the Guidance Division of the College of Education, thus providing students association with in­ structors who are likewise trained, or in the process of being trained, as school counselors. The population samples were drawn from the student enrollment in this first -i*

^The Ohio State university. College of Eduoation Bulletin7T9B8-r959. 14^. 59 course in education.

The Population Samples Pour population samples are used in the present study. The total number of students in the four samples is 156, and the N for each of the four groups is as follows: Group I, thirty-four; Group II, forty-four; Group III, twenty-nine; Group IV, twenty-nine. Only female freshman students who were pursuing the elementary education curriculum are included in the samples* The investigator felt that by restricting the samples to female students, more representative samples of the typical elementary education student could be secured. Also, it seemed more appropriate to oonfine the samples to freshman students on the assumption that the use of sophomores, juniors, or seniors would tend to produce value, interest, and personal differences which oould not be differentiated from other variables in the study* In other words, inexplicable findings may have resulted from the use of sarnies which were too unrestricted* At the beginning of the Winter Quarter, in January, 1959, the records of all women students who had been en­ rolled in Eduoation 408 during the Fall Quarter, 1958, and all women students! records who were enrolled in the course for the Winter Quarter were investigated. This investi­ gation revealed that approximately 550 freshman women 60 students had taken, or were taking, the course during the 1958-1959 school year. Further investigation disclosed that about 250 of these students could not be included in the study for various reasons. Many had already left or had been dismissed from the university. Others had transferred out of the College of Eduoation. Several were transfers into the College of Education beginning with the Winter Quarter. Criteria for the selection of the sauries were established along these lines. Since the intent of the study was to compare evaluative attitudes of high and low ability students and high and low achieving students, it was necessary to select four samples. Being familiar with the student body of the university and anticipating several sampling problems which might arise, the investi­ gator decided to select much larger groups than desired thereby allovdng for such practical difficulties as illness among students, failure of students to appear for or to complete the experimental activities, lack of subjeots who were maintaining high grade point averages, and other miscellaneous problems. Once the criteria were set no modifications became necessary. The criteria for the four samples are as follows:

Group I (Low Scholastic Ability Group) N * thirty- four. All freshman women students pursuing elementary education ourrioulum in the College of Education. 61 All single women students between the ages of seventeen and twenty* All students who soored at or below the thirieth percentile on the Ohio State Psychological Examination and took the test in August or September of 1958.

Group II (High Scholastic Ability Group) N m forty-four. All freshman women students pursuing the elementary eduoation curriculum in the College of Eduoation. All single women students between the ages of seventeen and twenty. All students who soored at or above the seventieth percentile on the Ohio State Psychological Examination and took the test in August or September of 1958. Group III (Low Academic Achievement Group) N - twenty-nine. All freshman women students pursuing the elementary education curriculum in the College of Education. All single women students between the ages of seventeen and twenty. All students whose cumulative grade point ratio at the end of the second quarter in college was at or below 2 .0 0 . Group IV (High Academic Achievement Group) N * twenty-nine. All freshman women students pursuing the elementary education ourrioulum in the College of Eduoation. All single women students between the ages of seventeen and twenty.

All students whose cumulative grade point ratio at the end of the second quarter in oollege was at or above 2.80. 62 The similarities and the differences among the members of the four groups are quite pronounced. Table X illustrates the age similarity of the members. TABLE 1 AGES OF STUDENTS IN THE FOUR SAMPLES

17 18 19 20

Group I {N - 34) 4 21 7 2 Group II (N - 44) 7 30 5 2 Group H I (N - 29) 2 21 4 2 Group IV (N - 29) 4 14 10 1

Seven of the 136 students indicated that their home state was not Ohio • Two of these students are from Illinois, two are from New Jersey, and three listed New Yorlc state as their home state. Fifty-one students listed Columbus, Ohio as their home address. Table II illustrates the faot that many of these students have come from urban areas. TABLE 2 POPULATION OF STUDENTS' HOME! COMMUNITIES

Under 500 500-5000 5000-50,000 Over 50,000

Group I 1 3 8 22 Group II 1 6 14 23 Group III 4 6 5 14 Group IV 0 5 9 15 65 As would be expected since The Ohio State Uhiversity is located within the city of Columbus, many of the students reside at home. Table III indicates the place of residence of the sample members while enrolled in college. TABLE 3 STUDENTS* RESIDENCE WHILE IN COLLEGE

Heme On Campus Other

Group I 19 IS 3 Group II 19 E4 1 Group III IE 15 E Group IV IE 17 0

The extent of the intellectual ability and achieve­ ment differences among the members of the four groups may be realized by noting the differences in mean ability and achievement. In terms of scholastic ability, as measured by the Ohio State Psychological Examination, the mean (raw soore) for Group I is 40.4 whereas the mean for Group H is 103.5* The mean grade point ratios for Groups III and IV are 1.478 and 3.EE4, respectively.

The Tnatnnnflnta

The Ohio State Psychological Test, often referred to as the 0. S. P. E., is administered as a part of the 64 pre-admission testing program at The Ohio State University* This test is designed to measure an individual's potential for performing academically at the college level when compared with other entering freshmen at The Ohio State Uhiversity. Groups 1 and U were selected on the hasis of soores earned on the 0. S. P. E. at the time of their ad­ mission to the university in the Pall of 1958. The Allport-Veraon-Lindzey Study of Values, re­ vised edition is designed to measure the relative Importance which individuals attach to each of six interests or motives. In fact, the sub-title for the Study of Values as it appears on the manual is "A Scale for Measuring the Dominant Interests in Personality." These six broad cate­ gories of human preferences are (1 ) theoretical, (2 ) economic, (3) aesthetic, (4) sooial, (5) political, and (6 ) religious. These categories are "based directly upon Eduard Spranger's Types of Men, a brilliant work whioh defends the view that the personalities of men are best known through a study of their values or evaluative attitudes." The purpose and nature of the Study of Values is described as follows: The soale is designed primarily for use with college students, or with adults who have had some college (or equivalent) education. The test consists of a number of questions, based upon a variety of familiar situations to whioh two alternative answers (in Part I) and four alternative answers (in Part II) are 65 provided. In all there are 120 answers, 20 of which refer to each of the six values. The subjeot records his preferences numeri- ? cally by the side of each alternative answer. The Study of Values is a self-administering inven­ tory which normally requires about twenty minutes to oomplete. It may be given either individually or to a group. In the present study the inventory was administered as a part of the oourse, Eduoation 406, during both the Fall and the Winter quarters. It was necessary to ad­ minister a few inventories individually to students who did not attend class the day the scale was administered, who failed to complete the scale accurately the first time, or who were not enrolled in the oourse during the Winter quarter - the time at which the investigator gathered the data. When discussing the reliability, the norms, and the possible uses of the Study of Values, the authors point out that split-half reliability produot-moment correlations for a group of 100 students are as follows; Theoretical, *73; Economic, .87; Aesthetic, .80; Sooial, .82; Political, .77; and Religious, .90. The mean reliability coefficient, using a z transformation, is .82 for the Revised Form of the scale*

2Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey, 3* 66

The Kuder Preference Record, Personal, Is used In the present study to measure students* Interests. This inventory, which was developed In 1948, is designed to measure five different types of personal and sooial in-* terests: tt(A) preference for heing active in groups, (B) preference for familiar and stable situations, (C) pre­ ference for working with ideas, (D) preference for avoiding conflict, and (E) preference for direoting or influencing others.1,3 There is also a verification scale for determining the consistency and veridicality of an individual9s re­ sponses to the various items on the inventory* The pattern of scores on the Personal indicates the kind of relationships with other people that is preferred by the individual* It indicates how much he likes to take part in group activities, what role he prefers in the group, how interested he is in exploring new situations, whether or not he likes to be self-assertive, or whether he prefers working with ideas or things. This instrument may be given with or without super­ vision, either as a group or as an individual test. No time limit has been set but it usually requires about forty minutes to complete this inventory*

ami nmr Mani^i for the Kuder Preference Reoord. 67

As reported in the manual for the Kuder Preference Record, Personal, reliabilities for college women, when computed by the Kuder-Richardson formula, are as follows: Scale A, .84; Scale B, .8 8 ; Scale C, .82; Scale D, .84;

Soale E, .87.* The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) is designed to measure fifteen variables which are assumed to exist in varying degrees in all normal individuals* These variables are based upon a list of manifest needs whioh has been developed by H* A* Murray et al. the names of the categories or variables of the EPFS are as follows: Achievement, Deference, Order, Exhibition, Autonomy, Affiliation, Intraception, Suecoranee, Dominanoe, Abasement, Nurturance, Change, Endurance, Heterosexuality, and Aggression* Also, the EPPS provides a measure of test con­ sistency whioh is devised as a means of checking on the truthfulness of an individual's responses to the 225 pairs of items on the test. As is pointed out in the manual, for the EPPS, the items on the Inventory have been devised to measure what an individual believes to be characteristic of himself* A specific attempt was made during the construction of the

^Tbld.. 13. Murray ot al., 142-146. scale to minimize the influence of social desirability in responses to the statements. That is, in so far as possible, the items have been matohed with respect to sooial desira­ bility. For this reason students often find it difficult to choose between several of the pairs of items which appear on the scale. It does appear though that the EPFS is a very appropriate instrument for measuring what it purports to measure: the relative degree to which an individual ex­ hibits need in terms of the fifteen areas of need listed above. The following description of the categories of the Edwards Personal Preference Sohedule is abstracted from the Revised Manual of the scale. For a complete description of these categories, which is rather lengthy, one should see the manual itself. (1) Achievement: To do one?s best, to be successful, to accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort. (2) Deference: To get suggestions from others, to find out what others think, to follow instructions and do what is expected. (3) Order: To have written work neat and organized, to make plans before starting on a diffioult task. (4) Exhibition: To say witty and clever things, to have other's notice and comment upon one's appearance, to talk about personal achievements. (5) Autonomy: To be able to come and go as desired, to say what one thinks about things, to be independent of others in making decisions, to do things that are unconventional. (5) Affiliation: To be 69 loyal to friends, to participate in friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships, to form strong attachments. (7) Intracaptions: To analyze one's motives and feelings, to observe others, to understand how others feel about problems. (8 ) Suocorance: To have others provide help when in trouble, to seek encouragement from others, to have others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems. (9) Dominance: To argue for one's point of view, to be a leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a leader. (1 0 } Abasement: To feel guilty when one does something wrong, to aooept blame when things do not go right, to feel de­ pressed by inability to handle situations. (11) Nurturanoe: To help friends when they are in trouble, to assist others less fortunate, to treat others with kindness and sympathy. (12) Change: To do new and different things, to travel, to meet new people, to experience novelty and ohange in dally routine. (13) Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished, to complete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task. (14) Heterosexuality; To go out with members of the opposite sex, to engage in sooial activities with the opposite sex, to be in love with someone of the oppo­ site sex. (15) Aggression: To attaok contrary points of view, to tell others what one thinks about them, to 70 g criticize otliers publicly, to make fun of others. The purpose of the questionnaire (Appendix A) in this study was to obtain in as concise a fashion as possible rather comprehensive information concerning students' home backgrounds, school experiences, and atti­ tudes toward counseling activities. Twenty-one questions are inoluded in the questionnaire. Such queries as "size of high school graduating class," "approximate size of home town," "place of residenoe while in college," "employment experiences," "extent of sooial activities engaged in," and "attitudes toward counseling" serve well to throw light upon theoretical reasons why students may possess certain evaluative attitudes. There was little opportunity for students to express subjective opinions in completing this questionnaire. A decided attempt was made to formulate the questions so that they might be quantified. This advantage of speoifioity did oause students some difficulty. For example, several students did not know the size of their high school grad­ uating olasses. Numerous errors, and expressions of "I don't know," were reoorded for the item concerning the approximate size of home town.

As a means of checking and verifying responses to the items on the questionnaire, the investigator often

^Edwards, 14. 71 dlsoussed with the student responses which were more crucial to the study at the time the student appeared to complete the inventories. Frequently, it become obvious that students had either misunderstood the intent of several items or had quite naturally "white-washed" their responses. Often it turned out that students would respond to the questions concerning Father and Mother*s education by re­ cording "high school" or "college." By discussing the items with the students much more specificity was attained.

Gathering the Data By screening the College of Education records it was possible to select students whose intelligence and/or grade point ratios indicated that they would be appropriate for inclusion in the study. Much larger groups were chosen than were aotually desired or deemed necessary because it was anticipated that several complications, such as Illness, conflicts in schedules, drop-outs from the university, or reluotanoe to take part in the study, would arise. It turned out that such complications were far less than anti­ cipated. Each student who was enrolled in the Education 408 Program and who had been selected as a desirable member of the study was given a questionnaire to complete and was aBked to report to the Guidanoe Office. Those students who had been in the Education 408 course in the Autumn Quarter of 1958 were contacted by telephone and follow-up was 72 conducted via mail when necessary* At the time each student appeared at the Guidance Offioe, she was informed generally that she had been se­ lected as a desirable participant in a study which was being conducted with the cooperation of freshman women* The amount of time which each participant would be asked to devote to the study was indicated and it was pointed out that the results of the preference inventories would be explained in a general way if the student so desired. This approach elicited enthusiasm and oooperation from all but two of the students who actually appeared at the Guidance Offioe. Sinoe there were three inventories and a ques­ tionnaire involved, the students were encouraged to take them in two settings* That is, the usual prooedure was to administer the Scale of Values and the Kuder at one setting and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule at the second* Actual administration of the instruments began during the third week of February and continued through the first week of April, 1959. The majority of the inventories were administered between February 23 and March 6 , with the latter weeks of the data gathering period - Maroh and April - being devoted both to the administration and interpretation of Inventories* Students took the Inventories then re­ turned approximately two weeks later for an interpretation of the results. 73

Point hour ratios and aoademio ability scores were obtained by checking the files of the Offioe of Education* A few students inquired as to why they were selected for Inclusion in the study. A general response to the effeot that the investigation was concerned with the likes and dislikes of female students usually suffloed* After oheoking the 0* S. P. E. scores and the point hour ratios, the investigator grouped the students* Originally, the four groups consisted of 197 students. Contaot was then made with the students, either through the Education 408 course or via telephone. When the students appeared at the Guidanoe Offioe, another cheok was made to insure that the questionnaire was completed accurately, or, if the student was not currently enrolled in the course, the questionnaire was completed and checked in the Guidance Offioe. Also, the Study of Values inventory, which had been administered to those students who were enrolled in Eduoation 408, was ohecked and the scores were recorded* Again, for those students who were not currently enrolled in the Eduoation 408 course, the Study of Values was administered when they appeared at the Guidanoe Offioe, then ohecked and the soores recorded*

The Kuder Preference Record, Personal, and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule were administered to each student at the time of her second, or in a few oases, her third, appearance at the Guidanoe Offioe* 7 4 Treatment of the Bata Upon the completion of all inventories and ques­ tionnaires, a re-check was made of all scores on the various scales and the responses which were recorded on the questionnaires* Each Study of Values was checked to insure that all items were completed and that the totals equalled 240. Each Euder was checked to insure that scores were usable. Each Edwards PPS was scanned to insure that all items had been answered and that the total of each answer sheet equalled 2 1 0 . I. B. M. cards were not used for the handling of the data. Instead, the investigator felt that sufficient ease of hand ling the data could be attained by recording all results on graph sheets then computing directly from these sheets. The data gleaned from the questionnaires were transposed direotly to tables by separately analyzing each questionnaire. Bata concerning the three stand­ ardized instruments, the Allport-Vemon-Lindzey Scale, the Euder Record, and the Edwards PPS were computed directly from the graph sheets. To test each of the six hypotheses, which were stated in Chapter I, the following procedure was followed: To test hypothesis I that there is no relationship between the value judgments expressed by high and low ability female students at the freshman level in college 75 the mean of each of the oategories of the Study of Values for Group I was compared with the mean of each of the oategories of the Study of Values for Group 11, using the following foimula: Mi - Mi AttX,x - ffX.V*- + A/*X£ - (CXtY-

N, ______M . M +■ M 1-2. To test the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the interests expressed by high and low ability female students at the freshman level in college the mean of each of the five scales (A,B,C,D,E) of the Kuder Preference Record, Personal, for Group I was compared to the mean of each of the five scales of the Kuder for Group II. The formula for "t" or critioal ratio, as stated above, was used for this and the four subsequent hypotheses. A copy of the raw data is inoluded in Appendix B. In Chapter IV may be found the results of the application of the t-ratio formula which appears above.

7Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis (New York: Rinehart and Company, Ino., 195^), 130-132. CHAPTER IV

THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Presentation of the major findings will be in tenas of the six hypotheses which were posed in Chapter I. This chapter is devoted to a discussion of the data of the study and to a substantiation or rejection of the six sypotheses which were posed. In Chapter V implications of the findings will be drawn in an attempt to point 14) the signifioanoe of the present findings for work with college students, both in instructional and in guidanoe activities, and for further research concerning the relative importance of evaluative attitudes to scholastic ability and academic achievement.

The Findings The six hypotheses which served as the central focus of this study may be separated into two groups: three which are oonoemed with attitudes and ability and three which are concerned with attitudes and achievement. Hypotheses Concerning Attitudes and Ability Hypothesis I: There is no significant difference in the values expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the college freshman level. 76 77

This hypothesis represents an attempt to determine whether or not a relationship exists between level of scholastic ability and the pattern of values expressed by two groups of women students at the college freshman level. Comparisons were made between the mean soores of each of the two ability groups, groups X and II, on the six categories of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values. The role which values play in human behavior is assumed to be very prominent. However, little definiteness has been established as to the patterns of values charac­ teristic of individuals of extreme differences in ability. Human values and human abilities, if measured quanti­ tatively, may be related in such a fashion that inoreased effectiveness in instruction and/or guidanoe may be pro­ vided on the basis of an understanding of value differences among students of variant abilities. By applying the t-ratio to determine the signif­ icance of the differences of the mean soores of the high ability and the low ability groups employed in the present study, it was found that in terms of the six oategories of the Study of Values hypothesis I concerning the lack of relationship between scholastic ability and values must be accepted in four instanoes and rejected twice. The .01 and the .05 confidence limits have been aooepted as suitable for this study. These limits will be indicated in eaoh illustrative table throughout this chapter. 78 Table 4 Illustrates that high ability and low ability students in the present investigation did not differ significantly in terms of theoretioal, social, po­ litical or religious values. On the other hand, differences in expressed economic and aesthetic values were significant; economic at the .05 per cent and aesthetio at the .01 per cent level of confidence. TABLE 4 MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY STUDENTS ON CATEGORIES OF THE STUDY OF VALUES

Category High Low Difference t Ability Ability (N - 44) (N - 34)

Theoretical 35.77 36.82 1.05 .90 Economic 36.11 39.62 3.51 2.43* Aesthetio 38.83 33.32 5.50 3.62** Social 42.27 42.82 .55 • 39 Political 38. 30 39.47 1.17 .77 Religious 49.18 47.94 1.24 1.33 * * .05

** ~ ,01

It is interesting to note that the members of the low ability group expressed slightly higher preference for theoretical activities and situations than did the high ability students, although the differences in the means is 79 not significant at either the .05 or the .01 level of con­ fidence. It would seem that the differences in the means is in the wrong direction for this category. Because of the nature of the theoretioal items on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale, it would he ejected that high ability students would be able to grasp the oonoepts more easily and would consequently score higher, i.e., would be more interested in these items than would the low ability students. Such is not the case. This does not necessarily mean that high ability students are less able, or not any more able, to think theoretically than low ability students. It may mean simply that both groups have been about equally exposed to such type of thinking and therefore responded in a similar maimer to the items. In brief, there is no significant difference in the theoretioal values expressed by high and low ability students in this study. The thirty-four low ability and the forty-four high ability students differ significantly in terms of economio values expressed, the low ability students indicating greater preference for the accumulation of wealth, the pro­ duction and consumption of goods. This finding is as the investigator expected. While administering the inventories and during the disousslons which followed the administration and interpretation of the inventories, it seemed that the students who had been assigned to the low ability group (as well as those assigned to the low achievement gro\jp) 80 looked upon life from a more mundane, that is, a more "practical" manner than did the members of the high ability and high achievement groups. The differences in the means for the economic category, 3.51, is significant at the ,05 level of confidence, and the null hypothesis must be rejected in terms of eoonomio values. The difference of 5.50 in the means of the scores of the two groups on aesthetio values is highly significant, at the .01 per cent level, and the hypothesis must be re­ jected in terms of this oategory. For the two groups used in this study, high ability students express higher aesthetic values than do low ability students, which seems logical in terms of the relationship which was found con­ cerning economic values. High and low ability students do not differ greatly, no more than can be attributed to chance, on either the theoretioal, politloal, social, or religious oategory of the Study of Values. Thus, the hypothesis is sub­ stantiated In reference to these four oategories. In brief, a blanket hypothesis concerning the re­ lationship of students.* values and abilities is obviously invalid. The present investigation reveals that the high and low ability students are characterized by both dif­ ferences and similarities in values. Eoonomio and aesthetio differences are quite pronounced, while theoretioal, social, 81 political, and religious preferences are not significantly

different at either the .05 or the .01 per cent level of confidence.

Hypothesis U : There is no significant difference in the interests expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the college freshman level. Interests, in the sense euqployed here, means concern for five different types of personal and social activities. These five areas of interests are those reflected in the oategories of the Kuder Preference Record, Personal. A rather full description of the instrument and the five categories is provided in Chapter III. Table 5 shows the results of the comparisons which were made between means of high and low ability students on the five scales of the Kuder Reoord. TABLE 5 MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY STUDENTS ON THE KUDER PERSONAL PREFERENCE RECORD

Category High Low Difference t Ability Ability (N - 44) (N - 34)

A 42.86 42.79 .07 .03 B 32.77 33.18 .41 .20 C 40.41 34.65 5.76 2.80** D 52.64 53.91 1.27 .61 E 34.86 33.68 1.18 .55 ** - .01 82 It will be recalled that the various scales of the Kuder Record, as described in Chapter III, are (A) Preference for being active in groups, (B) Preference for familiar and stable situations, (C) Preference for working with ideas, (D) Preference for avoiding conflict, and (E) Preference for directing or influencing others. Differences in the scores of the high and the low ability students on the Kuder Inventory are significant only for category C, preference for working with ideas.

High ability students responded more often to items whioh dealt with thinking through some situation as opposed to working with the hands or actually performing some physical activity. This difference demands that the hypothesis concerning the lack of significant difference in interests be rejected for Category C at the .01 level of confidence. For the other four areas of interest, as measured by the Kuder Record, the hypothesis is accepted as stated. As shown in Table II significant differences did not appear for categories A, B, D, and E. This findings concerning Category C seem quite logical in one sense, yet bothersome when viewed in terms of the students* soores on the Study of Values. The high ability students* mean soore on Category C was 5.76 points higher than the mean for the low ability grotg>. This provides a t of 2.80, whidh Is highly significant. In 03 other words, high ability students express Interest in working with ideas, as opposed to working with things, much more often than do low ability students. No doubt this generalization reflects an assumption generally held by teachers and guidanoe workers. But when viewed in terms of the theoretioal oategory of the Study of Values a few questions arise: To what extent is the Category C of the Euder Inventory different from the theoretical category of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale? Why would high ability students score higher on Category C of the Euder Record and score slightly lower on the theoretical scale of the Study of Values?

Hypothesis III: There is no significant dif­ ference in the personal preferences (manifest needs) expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the college freshman level. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was em­ ployed to measure students9 manifest needs. The terns, manifest needs and personal preferences, are used inter­ changeably by the author of the EPPS. A description of these terms and the fifteen variables embodied in the schedule appears in Chapter III. Table 6 contains the results of the comparisons between Groups I and II on the several variables of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. 84

TABLE 6 MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OF HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY STUDENTS ON SCALES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE

Category High Low Difference t Ability Ability (N . 44) (N « 34)

Achievement 15.64 11.82 1.82 2.01* Deference 11.66 14.03 2.37 3.19** Order 11. S5 12.18 .93 .93 Exhibition 13.77 14.79 1.02 1.27 Autonomy 10.55 9.24 1.31 1.52 Affiliation 17.64 17.12 .52 .69 Intraception 18. S3 18.44 .21 .22 Succoranoe IS. 45 11.32 1.13 1.11 Dominanoe 15.18 13.74 1.44 1.33 Abasement 15.70 16.76 1.06 1.14 Nurturanoe 16.36 16.65 .29 .26 Change 17.34 16.44 • 90 .87 Enduranoe 1S.98 14.12 1.14 1.04 Heterosexuality 15.SO 12.24 .96 .87 Aggression 9.79 11.18 1.39 1.36 * - .05 ** s .01 85 Considering hypothesis III in terms of the several categories of the Edwards Inventory, it is necessary that the null hypothesis be accepted for thirteen of the fifteen factors and rejected for only two, achievement and deference* High ability students as a group expressed significantly higher need to achieve, to do their best in activities undertaken, to be successful* Likewise, high ability students expressed less need for suggestions from other persons than did the low ability students. Since the items on the Edwards Inventory which are classified as "achievement" deal with succeeding in terms of scholastic and/or intellectual activities, it is not surprising to find that the high ability students differ significantly from the low ability group both in terms of the achieve­ ment category on the EPPS but also in terms of Category C of the Euder Heoord* The high ability students would be expected to express more conoern for the use of ideas and a higher expectation of success in intellectual realms than would the lower ability students* No doubt lower ability students have experienced more difficulties in intellectual pursuits during their lives and have "learned" that to prize achievement in intellectual activities, the working with ideas, often leads to extreme discomfort or failure experiences* The difference, 2*57, in the mean scores of the two groups in deferenoe may indicate that low ability students 86 actually realize, that is, they may have a self-perception, that they are somewhat incompetent in situations involving academic activities. This may explain why they tend to look toward others frequently for suggestions. In fact, it would have been most surprising to find the low ability students scoring higher than the high ability group in this respect. According to these results, high ability students express more need to achieve and feel more able to perform activities autonomously than do low ability students. Several other differences, although not extreme enough to meet the .01 or the .05 confidence limits, still seem to indicate trends worthy of note. Exhibition, for example, seems to be more characteristic of low ability students than of students classified as high in ability, low ability individuals may feel the need to say witty and clever things, to be noticed and reacted to in social situations, more so than higher ability persons because of a basic feeling of inadequacy. This, coupled with the findings concerning deferenoe, may well be the beginning of a personality pattern generally characteristic of low ability students. This possibility is seemingly further substantiated by the fact that low ability students soored somewhat higher on the abasement oategory than did the high ability group. Abasement items on the EPFS deal with such self-perceptions as feeling timid in the 87 presenoe of superiors and feeling inferior to others in most respects. This inquiry concerning what the patterns of soores may mean in terms of one's attitudes toward self may he extended even to include the differences in respect to autonomy, dominance, and aggression. Low ability students did not score as high as the high ability group on items whioh dealt with working without supervision, planning and carrying out a project on one's own, taking charge of a situation and assuming responsibility for the actions of a group. However, low ability students score higher on the aggression category, which has to do with the expression of hostility or animosity toward others. Perhaps the aggression expressed by these students is reaotion formation, a reaction against feelings of in­ adequacy. What trends or tendencies are observable concerning high ability students? High ability students expressed somewhat more autonomy than the low ability group. High ability students ohoose items which would lead one to believe they would seek out help (sucooranoe) more often than would low ability students. It would seem that high ability students are more dominant, or at least desire to be more dominant, than are the members of the other group. Also, the high ability group members seemingly feel less need to be aggressive than do the low ability students. 88

Possessing higher ability, they probably have less cause to aggress, especially in an academic situation* Un­ fortunately, conclusive generalizations cannot be provided* Several of the ratios which were computed are not significant enough to justify definite conclusions* In several instances the differences are so slight that they may well be attributed to ohanoe* In respect to the relationship of manifest needs and ability it can be stated definitely that for these two groups used in the present study significant dif­ ferences were found in achievement and deferenoe scores. Several other interesting tendencies are apparent and have been mentioned above*

Hypotheses Concerning Attitudes and Achievement Ifypothesis IV: There is no significant difference in the values expressed by high achieving and low aohieving female students at the college freshman level. Basically, the differences which were found between the values of the high ability and the low ability groups are very similar to the differences between the high aohieving and the low aohieving groups. Low aohieving students expressed higher eoonomio values than did the high aohieving students* As shown in Table 4 the means of the two groups are 5*21 points apart in terms of raw scores* This renders a t-ratio of 2*02 whioh is significant at the 89 •05 per oent level* Coupled with the fact that the high ability and the low ability groups (Table 4) differed 5.51 points in means on the economic category, which was also significant at the .05 level, it can be stated that both pairs of groups exhibit differences in economic values. Low ability students are more interested in economic aspects of life than high ability students. Likewise, low achieving students express more interest in eoonomio areas of life than do high aohieving students. It is rather clear, also, that high ability and high aohieving students values aesthetic experiences more highly than do low ability and low achieving students. In Table 4 is illustrated the difference of 5.50 for the aesthetic category. This is significant. In Table 7 the difference of 3.93 renders a t of 2.49 which is significant at the .01 level of confidence and demands that hypothesis IT be rejected in terms of the aesthetic category. Thus, the hypothesis concerning the lack of re­ lationship between level of achievement and expressed values Is rejected for the eoonomio and the aesthetio oategories and accepted for the theoretical, social, po­ litical, and religious categories. It would seem that since low ability and low aohieving students were more interested in eoonomio values in life they would also have been more Interested in political matters since the 90 political oategory is described as quest for power, po­ sition, and authority. But such is not the oase between Groups III and IT. High aohieving students express higher interest in political values but lower preference for economic values. However, low aohieving students scored slightly higher than the high aohieving students on the political category, but the difference is not significant in terms of the statistic employed in this study. TABLE 7 MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS OE HIGH ACHIEVING AND LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS ON CATEGORIES OE THE STUDY OE VALUES

Category High Low Difference t Aohieving Aohieving (N * 29) (N - 29)

Theoretical 36.62 35.45 1.17 .77 Economic 37.55 40.76 3.21 2.02* Aesthetio 39.24 35.31 3.93 2.49* Social 40.93 42.00 1.07 .47 Political 40.86 36.34 2.52 1.54 Religious 44.79 48.14 3.35 1.45 _ ♦ • e 05

As was expected low aohieving students scored lower on the theoretical category, although, again the difference is not significant. What was not expected was the faot 91 that low achieving students soored higher on the social category. Neither the .01 nor the .05 confidence limits will hold for this comparison. The results of the comparison in terms of the re­ ligious category are interesting but again not sufficient for any conclusive generalizations. High ability students soored higher than the low ability group on religious pre­ ferences, but low aohieving students as a group scored higher than higher aohieving students on the religious items. The fact that the difference of 3.35 between the means for the religious category in Table 7 renders a t of only 1.45 must be attributed to the nature of the standard deviation of the soores for both groups. In brief, the null hypothesis concerning the lack of relationship of values to level of achievement must be accepted for the theoretioal, social, political, and re­ ligious oategories of the Study of Values. The eoonomio and aesthetic aspects of the investigation demand re­ jection at the .01 per cent level. This means that marked differences do seem to exist between the values of high achieving and low aohieving students in terms of eoonomio and aesthetic values. It does not mean that other dif­ ferences do not exist, especially since certain tendencies may be noted. It merely means that differences in terms of theoretical, social, political, and religious values 92

were not significant for these groups when tested under the conditions of this study and compared hy the t technique. Hypothesis V: There is no significant difference in the interests expressed by high aohieving and low aohieving female students at the college freshman level* Muoh attention has heen given to the measurement of intellectual ability and the relating of this ability, or differential abilities, to academic achievement* One of the major concerns of ability measurement has been the prediction of scholastic success and/or the explanation for the lack of such success. Hypothesis V seeks to de- termine whether academic achievement, when dealt with irrespective of ability, is related to students' in­ terests. It should be recalled, though, that interests as here oonoeived does not mean interest in a particular course of study or vocational interest. Interests, as measured and disoussed here, mean preference for variant types of hypothetical associations which one may have with other individuals or groups of individuals. The instru­ ment used for measuring interests is the Euder Preference Record, Personal.

In discussing the findings oonoeming Hypothesis II it was pointed out that significant differences in the interests of high and low ability students were evident only on Category C of the Euder Record. When a comparison Is made between the cumulative grade point ratios for each of two achievement groups and the mean scores of these groups on the categories of the Kuder Record findings similar to those for the two ability groups are disclosed* High achieving students express higher preference for working with Ideas than do low achieving students. The difference in the mean soores of Groups III and IT on Category C is 5,48, whioh renders a t-ratio of 2.43. This is significant at the .05 confidence level, thus providing a basis for the rejection of the null hypothesis for Category C. Whether the variant concern for working with ideas is oaused by differences in ability or whether the variant concern is the reason for the differences in achievement is still a moot question. With a high degree of certainty it can be stated though that low ability and low aohieving students tend not to prefer working ideas as much as high ability and high aohieving students. One other category of the Kuder Record results in differences which are significant at the .01 level of con­ fidence. Category B, preference for familiar and stable situations, reveals a difference of 4.52 in the means of the high and the low aohieving groups. Thus, the hypoth­ esis must be rejeoted in terms of this oategory also, and it is appropriate to oonolude that low aohieving students exhibit more interest in familiar and stable life 94 situations th.an do the high achieving students. It is

interesting to note that while low aohieving students soored higher than higher achieving students on this oategory- low ability students did not score significantly higher than high ability students on the same category. Table 8 shows the results of Groups III and IV on the Euder Freferenoe Record* Personal. TABLE 8 MEAN SCORES AMD t-RATIOS OF HIGH ACHIEVING AND LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS ON THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD, PERSONAL

Category High Low Difference t Aohieving Aohieving (N - 29) (N • 29)

A 43.54 42.14 1.20 .54 B 31.93 36.45 4.52 2.05* C 41.41 35.93 5.48 2.43* D 53.48 54.10 • 62 . 32 E 37.03 32.62 4.41 1.42 * « .05

Hypothesis VI: There is no significant difference in the personal preferences (manifest needs) expressed by freshman female students who are aohieving at a high level and by freshman female students who are aohieving at a low level aoadezoi gaily. 95 Hypothesis 71 must he accepted in terms of fourteen of the fifteen variables of the Edwards Personal Preference Sohedule. As shown in Table 6 high achieving students express the need for achievement more so than do low aohieving students. The differences of 2.55 in the means of the raw scores of the two groups on this oategory provides a t-ratio of2209 which is significant at the .05 per cent level. This difference, and the direction of the difference, is similar to the finding concerning need for achievement versus ability level. One may wonder if high ability and high aohieving students have higher preference for items which are concerned with achievement because they have experienced success more frequently than lower ability and lower achieving students or for some other reason or reasons. In any event, students of high ability and high achievement in this study express higher need to achieve than do their counterparts. 96

TABLE 9 MEAN SCORES AND t-RATIOS 03* HIGH ACHIEVING AND LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS ON SCALES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE

Category High Low Difference t Achieving Aohieving (N * 29) (N * 29)

Achievement 13.55 11.00 2.55 2.09* Deference 11.52 12.86 1.34 1.44 Order 11.10 11.76 • 66 .60 Exhibition 13.17 14. 62 1.45 1.70 Autonomy 10.66 11.66 1.00 .05 Affiliation 17.34 16.76 .58 .54 Intraoeption 18.69 16.52 2.17 1.82 Suoooranoe 12.00 12.31 .31 .25 Dominance 15.03 13.00 2.03 1.58 Abasement 16.38 16.00 .38 .29 Nurturanoe 17.21 18.07 .86 .77 Chance 17.28 17.83 .55 .41 Endurance 13.38 14.28 .90 .72 Hetero sexual!ty 13.21 14.34 1.13 .79 Aggression 9.24 9.21 .03 .02 * « .05 97 It is surprising that low aohieving students did not differ more from the high aohieving group in terms of deference, endurance, and aggression* It will he re* called that low ability students scored significantly higher on deference than the high ability group* The differences of scores for the ability groups were more pronounced for aggression and endurance than for the achievement groups. Differences in terms of intraception and dominance for the achievement groups approached signif­ icance but can not be considered as basis for further generalizations* Perhaps a more rigorous statistical pro­ cedure would reveal other significant differences*

Additional findings afli Observations One can not administer and interpret four-hundred- eight inventories to one-hundred-thirty-six students without gaining several impressions oonceming the evaluative attitudes characteristic of the members of the variant groqp members* Although the investigator attempted not to think of each student as a high or low ability person or as a high or low aohieving person during the interviews, students* differences in attitudes, levels of thinking, extroversion, introversion, dominance, sub­ missiveness, and various needs, interests, and personality traits beoame very apparent* 98 The investigator was associated with each of the 136 members of the four study groups for at least an hour. Sixty-three of the students requested additional time to discuss the results of the inventories further or to disouss some other soholastio, vocational, or personal ooncern. Seemingly, the fact that they completed the three inventories and a two-page questionnaire stimulated many students to discuss various topios with either the investigator or their regular instructor and/or counselor. The members of the four study groups looked very favorably upon counseling activities. They gave evidence of this in several ways. Instances of broken appoint­ ments and tardiness for appointments were almost negligible. Requests for counseling following the research activities were numerous. Only one student de­ clined to take part in the activities. An analysis of the responses to questions nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one of the two-page questionnaire which each student completed (see Appendix A) also provides evidenoe of the students' attitudes toward counseling activities. Students' reactions to these three questions are as follows: Question 19: Do you feel it is helpful for students to talk over their concerns (school problems, indecisions over ohoioe of a career, personal difficulties, etc.) with a counselor? Y e s ______No • 99

All thirty-four members of the low ability group, Group I, responded "Yes" to this question. All forty-four members of Group II, the high ability group, responded "Tes." All twenty-nine members of Group III, low achievers, responded "Yes," and twenty-four of the twenty-nine members in Group IV, the high achievers, responded "Yes." Question 20: Providing you wanted to, do you feel you could benefit from talking with a counselor? Yes ______No . The "Yes" responses to this question were as follows: Group I, thirty-four; Group II, forty-four; Group m , twenty-nine; Group IV, twenty-one. Question 21: Would you like to talk with a counselor about: School Achievement ______Choosing a Career A Personal Concern______A break down of students* responses to this question is shown below:

Group I Group II Group III Group IV (N » 54) (N *44) (N - 29) (N - 29)

School Achievement 18 27 21 8 Choosing a Career 17 19 9 13 A Personal Concern 5 13 10 6 100

Since the four groups are unequal in size, these results can he more meaningfully considered in terms of percentages. Eighteen of the students in the low ability group, about fifty-three per cent, expressed an interest in talking with a counselor about school achievement. Over sixty-one per oent of the high ability students expressed interest in discussing school achievement, and about seventy-two per cent of the low achievers checked this item. However, high achievers, as might be expected, did not feel so much need for counseling concerning school achievement. Eight of the twenty-nine members of Group IV, or about thirty per cent, indicated that they would like to discuss school achievement with a counselor. Students' positive reactions to the second part of the question, choosing a oareer, were as follows: Group I, fifty per oent; Group II, forty-three per oent; Group I H, thirty-one per oent; Group IV, approximately forty- five per oent. A cursory observation reveals that students are less likely to express an interest in talking with a counselor about a personal concern* The percentages of positive responses to the third part of question twenty-one are: Group I, about fifteen; Group II, nearly thirty; Group III, over thirty-four; Group IV, about twenty. 101

In general, students consider it helpful for individuals to discuss their concerns with a counselor* High aohieving students seemingly feel less need for counseling activities than the other three groups. There is a decrease In the positive attitudes toward counseling activities among all student groups as the inquiry shifts from the third person to the more personal second person. Note the changes in students' reactions from question nineteen, to question twenty, and finally to the direct question, number twenty-one.

Summary and Conclusions Six hypotheses concerning the relationship of scholastic ability and evaluative attitudes and academic achievement and evaluative attitudes have been discussed in this chapter. The findings of this study have been presented primarily in terms of these six hypotheses. Three of the hypotheses are concerned with attitudes and ability; three deal with attitudes and achievement. Evaluative attitudes has been broken down into values, iir- terests, and manifest needs. The various hypotheses state that no significant relationship will be found between (1) soholastio ability and values, (£) scholastic ability and interests, (3) scholastic ability and manifest needs, (4) academic achievement and values, (5) aoademio achieve­ ment and interests, and (6) aoademio achievement and 102 manifest needs. The members of the four study groups in­ volved in the investigation are female freshman students who were enrolled in the College of Education at The Ohio State University during the Winter Quarter 1959. The investigation reveals that each of the hypoth­ eses must be accepted and rejected on the basis of particular types or categories of values, interests, and manifest needs. Differences in the evaluative attitudes of students of variant degrees of ability and achievement can be isolated, but none of the six hypotheses is totally valid or invalid. When spelled out in terms of specific types of values, interests, and manifest needs, the results prove very enlightening and at times surprising. The major findings of the investigation are as follows: 1. High ability and low ability students do not differ significantly in terms of expressed theoretical, social, political, and religious values. 2. High ability and low ability students do express significantly different values in terms of eco­ nomic and aesthetic areas of preference; low ability students express higher preference for economio values, and high ability students express higher preference for aesthetic values. 3. High ability students express much higher interest in activities which involve the use of ideas or 103

the thinking through of some situation than do low ability students. 4. No significant differences in expressed in­ terests were found for categories A, B, D, and E of the Kuder Preference Record, Personal. These categories are respectively, preference for being active in groups, preference for familiar and stable situations, preference for avoiding conflict, and preference for directing or influencing others. 5. High ability students manifest more need to achieve, that is, to do well at whatever they undertake, to be successful, than do low ability students. 6. Low ability students exhibit more need to defer to others for suggestions, that is, to seek out the opinions of others when faced with a problem situation. The investigator interprets this to mean that low ability students tend to look to persons or sources outside themselves for ideas more so than to high ability students. 7. No significant differences were found between high achieving and low achieving students in terms of ex­ pressed theoretical, social, political, and religious values. 8. High aohieving and low aohieving students express significantly different values in terms of eoo- nomic and aesthetio areas of preference; Low aohieving students express higher preference for eoonomlo values, 104 and high achieving students express higher preference for aesthetic values*

9. Low achieving students express higher pre­ ference for familiar and stable social situations them do high achieving students.

10. High achieving students express higher pre­ ference for working with ideas than do low achieving students.

11. No significant differences were found between high achieving and low aohieving students in terms of categories A, D, and E of the Kuder Preference

Record, Personal.

12. High achieving students expressed signif­ icantly higher need to achieve than did low achieving students.

13. No significant differences were found between high achieving and low achieving students on the following categories of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule; deference, order, exhibition, autonomy, affiliation, intra- oeption, sucooranoe, dominance, abasement, nurturanoe, change, endurance, heterosexuality, and aggression.

It should be kept in mind that although certain generalizations can be applied to the four population samples of this study, factors of time, environmental setting, age of subjeots, and experimental conditions may 105 negate the assignment of these deductions to other student or non-student groups. Evaluative attitudes are constantly and subtly undergoing changes. Any generalizations con­ cerning values, interests, and needs should be interpreted with caution. However, the results of the present ob­ jective and subjective assessment of female freshman students* evaluative attitudes provide a basis for the following generalizations.

Both a relationship and a lack of relationship exists between evaluative attitudes and ability and evaluative attitudes and achievement. Students of variant levels of ability do not simply differ in terms of values.

Neither is it adequate to state that students of diver­ gent levels of achievement possess different values.

Students differ according to specific values, particular

Interests, and certain patterns of needs.

Low ability students seemingly prize economic and social areas of living more highly than the aesthetic and religious. High ability students, on the other hand, attach more value to aesthetic and religious experiences.

This leads the investigator to conclude that students of variant abilities tend to form different frames of ref­ erence or ways of looking at life* Differences in mental ability, acumen, condition the degree to which students can grasp and appreciate various aspects of life. Thus 106 the development of attitudes concerning the relative worth of various aspects of human activities is to a large degree a reflection of an individual's ability to perceive life experiences.

Students who possess high ability prefer to work with ideas more so than do low ability students. Again, it would seem that the factor of ability comes into play.

This is not to imply that high ability students seek out only those activities which involve the use of concepts.

Nor does this mean that low ability students prefer only situations in which they work with things of a tangible nature. It does seem safe, though, to conclude that high ability students attach more relative value to the use of ideas than do low ability students. Assuming that indi­ viduals seek out those activities which they can do and consequently find pleasure in doing, this conclusion seems very tenable.

Consistent with the above-stated generalizations, high ability students express higher preference for achieving in academic and personal activities than do low ability students. This implies that the high ability students have higher expectations for themselves than do the low ability students. The high ability individuals have undoubtedly oome to realize that they possess high ability and they maintain somewhat higher levels of ex­ pectancy for themselves. Conversely, low ability students 107 apparently peroeive themselves as being less oapable, at least in terms of aoademio activities, than many other students and consequently they express higher need for deferring to others for assistance, ideas, suggestions, opinions, planning, and so on.

The results of the comparison of values between low aohieving and high achieving students are very similar to the conparison of values between low and high ability students. This is not surprising because a high corre­ lation between ability and achievement would be expected.

Low achieving students attaoh higher value to economic areas of living than the high achieving students.

High aohieving students assign higher value to aesthetic qualities. Perhaps academic sucoess is best attained by those who view learning as an aesthetic rather than an economically beneficial enterprise. Both the test scores and the comments made by students during interviews lead the investigator to believe that low ability students in general view academic work as "a way of getting ahead" or

"a necessity if one is to get ahead in the world today."

High ability students more characteristically view aoa­ demio work as an end in itself. Quite often members of the high ability and high aohieving groups make suoh oomments as "I*m not getting enough out of ay classes," or "I had hoped to do better than I ’m doing." In brief, 108

the investigator is led to believe that low ability and low aohieving students are characterized by a more praotical, mundane, economically orientated attitude toward their college work than are the high ability and high aohieving students.

The findings cited in this chapter and the con­ clusions which emanated from the findings might we11 serve either heuristioally or operationally as the basis for further research or actual educational activities.

It is not the investigator's desire to deduce further generalizations on the basis of the present data. It remains for others to refute, substantiate further, add to, or modify the present findings concerning evaluative attitudes. There has been too little disciplined attention afforded this area of human understanding.

In Chapter Y implications of the present findings will be discussed in terms of educational and guidance activities at the college freshman level. Following the discussion of implications, a brief summary of the total study will be presented. CHAPTER V

IMPLICATIONS AND SUMMARY

In this chapter final remarkB will be made con­

cerning the relationship of evaluative attitudes to

scholastic ability and academic achievement. Several

Indications for educational practices and researoh will be discussed| the implications being a rather direct result of the findings concerning the six major hypoth­ eses of the study. Also, a brief summary of the total study is presented.

Tmpllftflt.l nn a

The results of this study re-emphasize an oft- stated but basic concept of educational work; individuals differ, and to such an extent that flexibility in educational offerings and procedures is imperative.

Differences between student groups were tested in this investigation. An understanding of such dif­ ferences should prove helpful to educational workers.

But a group approach to the understanding of attitudes may not be fully sufficient. Differences also exist within each student group. Eaoh of the 156 students in the four sample groups is to some degree unique. It would be inoorreot, for example, to oonolude that all low

109 110 ability students value economic areas of activity more highly than high ability students. The conclusion must be that low ability students as a group differ from high ability students as a group.

Instructional and counseling practices should be based upon an understanding of individual as well as group differences, but the idiographic approach was not employed in the present investigation. Since group dif­ ferences are here under consideration, the question which now arises is as follows: What implications for educational practice and/or research seem appropriate on the basis of the group differences revealed in the present investigation?

Instruction at the college level, if it is to harmonize with the value orientations of both high and low ability and high and low achieving students, must emphasize variant values (values is here used to mean worth, utility, appreciation, etc. inherent in course materials). Instruction must make provision for dif­ ferent student values and different values inherent in oourse materials if it is to be effective. To do this students might well be grouped in college classes according to ability levels, and concomitant value orientations, or else materials should be treated in terms of variant value orientations when divergent ability levels and value Ill

patterns are represented in the same class.

To plaoe students of divergent values and abilities

in the same oourses then expect all students to exhibit

interest and enthusiasm for the oourse materials seems un­

realistic. It is to deny the fact that differences in

students' value orientations and learning expectancies

exist. Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect that any one instructor could teach in suoh a fashion that the materials of the courses would appeal to students of vastly different values and abilities. For these reasons grouping according to ability may be advisable for college instruction. It may be beneficial because of the variant nature of students* values, interests, and learning expectancies, as well as abilities.

If ability grouping and its ooncomitant, grouping according to attitudes, is not initiated at the college level, then college instructors will need to make pro­ visions for students differences in attitudes and abilities.

This would mean that higher education institutions should train oollege teachers to become more sensitive to the attitudinal differences among students within their classes. Armed with skill in recognizing student dif­ ferences, the instructors could then handle the instructional materials of their courses in suoh a fashion that students of variant abilities and attitude orientations could 112 understand, appreciate, and benefit from the class work.

This investigator believes that a combination approach of ability grouping and attitudinal grouping would be the most effective procedure for promoting maximum learning and adjustment.

The present practice of establishing courses then expecting all students to exhibit similar interests in the courses may lead to much student discontent and failure. It may also be handicapping the efforts of many professional educators and enthusiastic students. To illustrate, several students who neither enjoy nor have the inclination to perform those activities associated with teaching, were enrolled in an elementary education curriculum. While counseling these students the in­ vestigator found that they were often in education because their parents insisted that they teach, because they believed the oourses to be easy, or because they simply wanted the prestige of college attendance. To say the least, suoh lack of agreement between students' basic values and interests and their actual life activities is not conducive to academic success or healthy personal adjustment. The result is that in many instanoes everyone concerned is wasting energy on a hopeless situation.

There is no reason, other than philosophical or political, why such unrealistic conditions should continue. 113

Also, a college can be selective in terms of the

evaluative attitudes which are emphasized within the

olassrooms. To emphasize only certain facets of the materials is to he ©elective as to who will benefit from the instruction. An understanding of students* differences in values, interests, and needs gives rise to the following issue. Colleges will need to decide if they believe higher education is for all youth or only for those who possess certain attitudes and abilities. If the point of view that college is for all youth is subscribed to, provision for attitudinal differences among students must be made. If this point of view is not to be supported in practice, then it would seem the pretense of the ideal should be abandoned.

Differences in students* attitudes are just as real as are differences in students* aptitudes or physical con­ ditions. It is commonly accepted that attitudinal differences condition the extent to which students will benefit from school work. Therefore, educational effec­ tiveness demands that attention be focused upon students* evaluative attitudes.

Counselors constantly deal with attitudes. The effective counselor realizes that the counselee's atti­ tudes are both the beginning and the end of the counseling relationship. In fact, counseling is based upon the assumptions that attitudes can be at least partially 114

understood and that such understanding nay lead to modi­

fications of behavior. It is essential, then, that

counselors investigate students* characteristic attitudes.

Attitudes of groups should be investigated, and attitudes of individual students should be examined.

The findings of the present study could well

serve as a stimulus to counselors. The findings should

cause counselors to ask themselves: What generalizations have been implicit in my counseling practices? What do I believe to be the role of values, interests, and needs in school achievement? In vocational choice? in personal adjustment? Do the assumptions underlying my counseling activities seem consistent with the generalizations cited in the present study? These are the types of questions which counselors need to ask themselves concerning their own work with students* attitudes.

There is need for much research in the areas of values, interests, and needs. The relationships of ability and achievement to the structures of students* personalities must be more specifically established before educational programming and prediction can hold much merit on these bases. Additional studies are urgently needed.

(1) Longitudinal studies are needed in which the values, interests, and needs of students are observed as they develop and change from the elementary through the 115

secondary and college levels, (S) Studies should be con­

ducted in which the evaluative attitudes of successful

and unsuccessful high school students are traced through

to college. Here tne intent would be to determine why

some students lose interest in academic work and why

others gradually develop more and more interest in aca­

demic pursuits. (3) Studies are needed to improve upon

the methods now employed in assessing evaluative atti­

tudes. New scales should be constructed and undoubtedly

more sound bases for item selection can be found. The

areas of human interests, needs, and values which are

omitted from current soales may constitute a major

shortcoming. (4) More information is needed concerning

the degree to which students* attitudes undergo change while in high school and college, and why. At present

educators do not know how desirable attitudes can best be

developed among students. Studies in which particular

teacher traits are Blated to certain student traits might well provide more specific answers to the perennial

questions, how does one interest students in academic work and how does one develop desirable personal traits within students.

Summary

This study was designed to discover what relation­

ships exist between (1) evaluative attitudes and soholastio 116

ability and (2) evaluative attitudes and academic achieve­

ment. The term evaluative attitudes is applied arbitrar­

ily to three types of feelings which individuals may

express toward objects, situations, or other persons*

These types of human expression, values, interests, and

manifest needs, have been subsumed under the construct,

evaluative attitudes. The investigator sought to measure

each of these three aspects of evaluative attitudes and to

compare each with scholastic ability and academic achieve­ ment. Therefore, three instruments were employed: the

Allport-Vemon-Lindzey Study of Values ( to measure values); the Kuder Preference Record, Personal (to measure interests); and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

(to measure manifest needs).

Six hypotheses were established to serve as directives for the investigation. Three of the hypotheses focus upon evaluative attitudes and scholastic ability and three deal with evaluative attitudes and academic achieve­ ments. These hypotheses maintain that no relationship exists between (1) values and scholastic ability, (2) in­ terests and scholastic ability, (3) manifest needs and soholastio ability, (4) values and academic achievement,

(5) interests and academic achievement, and (3) manifest needs and academic achievement. 117

Four sample groups of female freshman students were selected from the College of Education at The Ohio

State University. The respective groups were character­ ized by (1) low scholastic ability, (2) high scholastic ability, (3) low academic achievement, and (4) high aca­ demic achievement. The data on these groups was gathered during the Winter Quarter, 1959.

The findings concerning each of the six hypotheses are as follows:

(1) There is no significant difference in the values expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the college freshman level. This hypothesis, as well as the five which follow, was tested by t-ratio of the mean raw scores for two student groups on the value instrument. Low ability students express higher eeonomic values than high ability students; high ability students express higher aesthetic values. The hypothesis was re­ jected for economic and aesthetic values and accepted for theoretical, social, political, and religious values.

(£) There is no significant difference in the in­ terests expressed by high ability and low ability female students at the college freshman level. Comparisons of the means for two groups of variant ability revealed that high ability students express significantly higher interest in working with ideas than do low ability students. The 118

hypothesis was rejeoted in terms of interest in working

with ideas. The hypothesis was accepted in terms of the

preference categories, group activity, situational

stability, conflict avoidance, and influence or directive

activity.

(3) There is no significant difference in the personal preferences (manifest needs) expressed by high

ability and low ability female students at the college

freshman level. High ability students express more need

to achieve than do low ability students. Low ability

students express higher need for obtaining suggestions

from others. No other differences in manifest needs reached the .05 or the .01 confidence limits, but certain trends were observable. The hypothesis was rejected for only two of the fifteen categories of manifest needs which were measured. The rejection was for achievement and deference.

(4) There is no significant difference in the values expressed by freshman female students who are achieving at a high level and by freshman female students who are achieving at a low level academically. Low aohieving students express higher preference for economic values. High achieving students express higher preference for aesthetio values. Differences in terms of theoretical, social, politioal, and religious values were not signif­ icant. Thus, the hypothesis was rejeoted for two 119 categories of values, economic and aesthetic.

(5) There is no significant difference in the interests expressed by freshman female students who are aohieving at a high level and by freshman female students who are achieving at a low level academically. This hypothesis was rejected in terms of two interest categories.

Low aohieving students express interest in stable social situations, operating within a familiar framework, than do high achieving students. High achieving students express higher interest in working with ideas than the low achieving group. The two groups did not score signif­ icantly different in terms of interest in working within groups, interest in avoiding conflict, and interest in influencing or directing the activities of others.

(6) There is no significant difference in the personal preferences (manifest needs) expressed by freshman female students who are achieving at a high level and by freshman female students who are aohieving at a low level academically. High achieving students are characterized by a significantly higher need to achieve.

No other significant differences appeared for categories of manifest need. The hypothesis is accepted for fourteen categories of the needs which were measured and rejected for one, achievement. 120

A questionnaire was completed by each of the 156 subjects. Three of the items on the questionnaire were inquiries designed to determine what attitudes students have toward counseling. When stated impersonally nearly all students of all ability and achievement levels react positively, i.e., they indicate "Yes" they feel it is helpful for students to talk over their concerns with counselors. When stated more provisionally, e.g., pro­ viding you wanted to, do you feel you could benefit from talking with a counselor? the same students express far fewer positive attitudes toward counseling. However, when stated more directly, and when specific areas of possible concern are suggested, the percentage of positive responses becomes larger. This leads the investigator to believe, although a more scientific examination should be conducted, that: (1) Students’ attitudes toward coun­ seling are not greatly conditioned by either ability or achievement. (2) Nearly all individuals will indicate that counseling is helpful, but high achievers are somewhat less likely to feel that counseling is helpful for students in general. (5) Students are more positive toward counseling practices when questioned in terms of school achievement and choosing a career than when questioned in terms of a personal concern. APPENDIX

121 122 QUESTIONNAIRE

Name ------2‘-A8®-----5' College _

4* Campus Address ______Phone______

5. Name of home town ______Population

6. Size of high school graduating class ______7* Where do

you live while attending college? Home Dormitory

Sorority ______Other______

8e Number of brothers Number of sisters

9. Ordinal position in the family; 1st 2nd 3rd______

4th ______5th ______Other _ _ _ _ _

10e Occupation of father ______Occupation of mother

11* Extent of father's education ______mother's

12# Favorite courses while in high school ______

13* What is your vocational goal?

14. At about what age did you decide to pursue the goal stated

above?

15. Have you had work experience for which you were paid?

While attending high school? Yes No______

Type of work? ______

During summer vacations? Yes _ _ _ _ No ____ Type of

work? ______

£kiployed at the present time? Yes No ____ Type

of work? ______123 16, What is your major means of support while in college?

Family _ _ _ _ _ Scholarship _ _ _ _ _ Jiimployment _____

Other

17. What social activities were you engaged in during high school? a# office held

b. office held

c. office held

d. office held

e. office held

18# What social activities are you engaged in at Ohio State? a. office held

b. office held

c • office held

d. office held

e. office he Id

19. Do you feel it is helpful for students to talk over their concerns (school problems, indecisions over choice of a career, personal difficulties, etc.) with a counselor? Yes No _ _ _ _ _

2 0 # Providing you wanted to, do you feel you could benefit from talking with a counselor? Yes ______No______

21. Would you like to talk with a counselor about: School achievement

Choosing a career _ _ _ _ _

A personal concern 124

NUMERICAL DATA OF THE STUDY

TABLE 10

SCHOLASTIC ABILITY PERCENTILE SCORES AND GRADE POINT RATIOS FOR GROUP I

Subjects Ohio State Grade Point Psychological Test Scores Ratios (Percentile Scores)

1 1 0.972 2 2 1.906 5 5 1.065 4 5 1.441 5 5 1.571 6 5 1.438 7 6 1.941 8 7 2.188 9 8 2.676 10 9 1.762 11 10 1.588 12 11 0.971 13 12 0.969 14 15 1.722 15 15 0.943 16 17 1.400 17 18 1.143 18 18 2.694 19 18 1.344 20 18 1.719 21 19 1.594 22 19 1.03JL 23 21 1.762 24 21 1.242 25 24 1.294 26 22 3.189 27 26 2.382 28 26 1.559 29 26 1.441 30 29 2.5^3 31 29 1.861 32 29 1.778 33 30 2.424 34 30 2.469 125 TABLE 11

RAW SCORES ON CATEGORIES OF TEE ALLPORT-VERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES FOR GROUP I

Subjects Theoret­ Economic Aes­ Social Polit­ Reli­ ical thetic ical gious

1 38 41 39 35 33 54 2 37 42 31 48 39 43 3 34 44 27 44 37 54 4 31 43 27 39 53 47 5 48 40 30 36 38 48 6 46 36 24 47 47 40 7 37 35 30 46 40 52 8 35 36 35 44 44 46 9 33 41 34 45 42 47 10 40 42 42 37 42 37 11 33 43 30 44 36 54 12 38 30 42 35 39 56 13 34 39 33 42 38 54 14 32 39 29 43 46 51 15 43 40 26 39 39 53 16 31 45 37 43 41 43 17 42 39 35 41 41 42 18 38 42 29 51 34 46 19 35 40 32 46 36 51 20 36 39 35 52 36 42 21 33 44 31 46 39 47 22 34 34 54 48 29 61 23 40 35 40 35 50 40 24 35 42 34 42 46 41 25 39 38 31 48 39 45 26 35 36 39 45 40 45 27 34 32 53 39 40 42 28 37 43 33 51 28 48 29 38 34 40 43 28 57 30 41 41 25 43 39 51 31 41 46 34 35 34 50 32 30 32 36 42 48 52 33 36 44 28 42 46 44 34 38 50 28 42 35 47 vD CM

K \ O KMOko VD CO C\J GO OJ 00 H O 'H IA rc\ O 00 CM o vO CM H VD VO O 00 i i - I N lA KN Q H lAfAKMACM CM fA4" CM rAfAfACVI rArHlA-ST rAfACM fAlA(A4F CM 4 CM rS fA 4 K \4 LA 4

CT^ Q VO 00 00 tACO VO H VO CT'M) CM CM LACT'O C ^C ^lA O 00 O 00 Q » A H VD C^-CM IS » A 4 -O - lALALAKMAVO 4 4 LAvO LALA4 VO LA1ALA 4- lA 4 " vD lAvO i f LA4- U M A lA vO LA LA 4 lD

lA IN C M O C A O LACM LACM CT'CM CO cOtNiACMCAiHH 4 O lACM CAOO O fACO K \Q VD CM lA CM 4 “ 4 lACM f A H 4 - fACM CM fACM fAOJ f A f A r A 4 CM LA 4 4 - (ACM4- 4- 4- rAtA-J lA 4 CM

OJrH

m O CM HCJ nJ- O 0 4 fA 4 Q tA(AINCAaMA4 0 4 00

(A 00 tA 00 CT'4* o V0 0 -4- lA LA VD O r-4 O 4- 4- rA tA rA lA VO CM OMA 00 V0 VA 4- CO VD VO KNfArArA4- lAlAtACM fA 4 4 tA4 K M A 4 4 4- LA 4- tA 4 4- 4- IA4 4- LALANMArA4-

a -p 0

T3©

1 iH CM fA 4- LAvOCNCOCAOHcMfA4- LA VD IN00 CT^OHCM rA4" LAlO tNCOO>OrHC\JrA4 H H H r H H H r - l H rH rHCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMKNKNlAtAtA 127 (TABLE 13 RAW SCORES ON VARIABLES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE, SCHEDULE FOR GROUP I ______1______2______3 4______5______6 Subjects Achieve^- Defer- Order Ebcbibi- Auton- Affil- ment ence tion omy iation

1 16 17 11 18 13 17 2 15 15 16 12 10 20 5 9 14 11 18 9 17 4 14 16 17 23 11 14 5 14 15 15 12 10 17 6 11 16 10 16 7 17 7 18 15 8 12 10 20 8 8 12 9 14 7 20 9 12 12 23 11 11 16 10 12 12 15 16 8 18 11 9 15 9 12 7 16 12 12 15 15 14 10 11 15 8 11 9 17 19 16 14 15 9 7 14 13 21 15 5 15 14 21 10 17 16 13 15 13 17 17 16 17 13 16 17 20 3 13 18 18 10 14 15 6 21 19 9 16 11 16 11 16 20 8 7 15 20 7 17 21 16 16 14 11 9 17 22 7 20 10 14 8 19 25 20 15 9 12 9 13 24 19 19 17 11 11 11 25 11 15 5 11 8 22 26 9 10 12 11 8 21 27 12 17 6 18 5 18 28 12 15 11 11 5 17 29 16 14 15 11 8 15 30 16 11 18 14 5 20 51 6 14 16 13 14 16 32 7 18 3 15 6 18 33 9 12 14 19 8 17 34 16 16 7 14 11 18

(continued on next page) 128 TABLE 13 (continued)

7 8 9 . _ 10 11 12 Subjects Intra- Succor- Domi­ Abase­ Nurtur- Change ception ance nance ment ance

1 15 9 12 15 13 22 2 20 9 9 18 22 22 3 23 8 13 20 21 19 4 22 7 15 9 9 16 5 17 12 21 14 10 18 6 20 12 11 15 19 20 7 15 10 17 21 21 16 8 26 9 18 16 22 16 9 18 13 9 24 23 7 10 7 9 18 19 14 19 11 16 19 16 21 17 14 12 16 6 18 14 13 14 13 23 11 14 14 19 25 14 16 18 7 21 18 14 15 22 13 8 20 14 16 16 22 7 15 12 12 17 17 15 8 14 11 15 15 18 15 7 18 16 18 19 19 14 19 7 19 18 21 20 20 14 6 13 15 14 21 21 13 10 16 18 14 22 22 16 15 14 18 19 23 23 11 15 15 8 18 24 19 8 10 16 15 14 23 11 16 14 19 21 19 26 23 14 12 14 19 15 27 20 3 15 17 4 19 28 20 17 12 22 25 20 29 19 12 15 19 17 15 30 12 12 17 13 16 16 31 19 9 18 19 19 14 32 22 6 15 19 25 18 33 15 13 14 18 14 9 34 19 15 19 16 14 5

(continued on next page) TABLE 13 (continued)

13 14 15

Endurance Heterosexuality Aggression sis

14 8 10 11 9 9 6 13 5 13 6 9 14 4 11 9 17 11 5 16 8 13 11 6 12 14 10 11 7 14 20 6 13 8 19 3 11 10 9 15 7 9 13 10 8 24 13 9 11 12 13 14 10 12 21 17 14 11 13 4 4 16 10 14 5 19 13 15 13 14 9 12 13 16 19 17 7 12 17 23 10 17 13 18 12 14 7 10 19 15 5 13 11 20 20 16 18 12 21 18 11 6 12 22 10 11 7 11 23 15 18 11 12 24 18 12 10 9 25 14 11 15 13 26 10 15 17 10 27 22 16 18 12 28 13 8 2 13 29 22 8 4 9 30 16 15 9 10 31 12 4 17 11 32 7 18 13 14 33 13 20 14 10 34 14 17 9 14 150 TABLE 14 SCHOLASTIC ABILITY PERCENTILE SCORES AND GRADE POINT RATIOS FOR GROUP II

Subjects Ohio State Grade Point Psychological Test Scores Ratios (Percentile Scores)

1 70 2.265 2 70 2.353 3 72 2.235 4 72 2.514 5 74 2.656 6 74 2.556 7 76 2.265 8 76 1.750 9 77 1.222 10 79 2.735 11 81 2.316 12 81 2.171 13 83 2.143 14 84 2.829 15 84 2.429 16 84 2.688 17 85 2.514 18 85 2.706 19 81 2.529 20 87 2.876 21 88 2.541 22 89 1.571 23 90 2.588 24 90 2.750 25 91 2.412 26 91 3.730 27 92 1.974 28 92 2.250 29 92 2.714 30 93 2.406 31 94 2.486 32 94 2.314 33 96 3.297 54 96 3.194 35 96 2.778 36 96 2.343 37 97 2.629

(continued on next page) 131 TABLE 14 (continued)

Subjects Ohio State Grade Point Psychological Test Scores Ratios (Percentile Scorea)

58 98 5.088 39 98 5.656 40 98 3.676 41 98 2.571 4 2 99 2.794 45 99 3.294 44 92 2.242 132 TABLE 15 RAW SCORES ON CATEGORIES OF THE ALLPORT-VERNON-LINDZET STUDY OF VALUES FOR GROUP II

Subjects Theoret- Economic Aes- Social Polit- Reli- ical thetic ical gious

1 34 4 2 34- 37 37 56 2 34 28 4-5 50 36 *7 3 54 25 4 5 37 4 5 56 4 33 4 5 4 2 4 4 36 42 5 36 33 28 53 30 60 6 38 4-5 36 4 8 29 4 4 7 36 4 0 31 4 8 34 51 8 38 33 54 38 54 43 9 4 4 35 53 29 28 51 10 33 32 4 2 42 33 58 11 35 33 4 0 53 26 53 12 4 3 37 24 4 1 4 2 53 13 33 34 51 46 39 37 14 4 5 36 36 ^8 40 4 5 15 35 40 4 1 32 56 56 16 36 22 38 4 9 37 58 17 37 36 4 6 29 56 36 18 32 32 4 2 39 39 56 19 54 4 2 33 53 30 4 8 20 31 4 6 33 50 35 4 5 21 28 4 3 35 4 7 39 4 8 22 35 37 3 6 45 45 44 23 27 4 0 39 45 33 58 24 33 37 38 51 32 49 25 39 4 1 29 4 8 42 41 26 38 31 4 6 31 36 58 liJl. 27 26 31 “T 4 9 36 54 28 4 1 4 3 27 4 2 30 57 29 29 33 37 4 7 42 53 30 56 4 6 37 34 36 51 31 33 4 9 36 39 38 45 32 4 4 32 36 36 46 46 33 35 4 0 35 4 7 40 43 34 27 4 2 37 4 9 30 55 35 34- 4 7 38 4 2 36 43 36 3* 21 4 4 4 6 36 59 37 37 34 36 37 53 43

(continued on next; page; 135 TABLE 15 (continued)

Subjects Theoret- Economic Aes- Social Polit- Reli- ical thetic ical gious

38 38 34 31 40 38 39 39 33 56 39 40 45 49 4-0 51 18 43 54 35 59 4-1 37 42 33 45 44 39 4-2 32 25 61 27 41 36 4*3 27 47 33 39 39 55 44 39 30 44 48 33 46 134- TABLE 16 HAW SCORES ON CATEGORIES OP THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD, PERSONAL, FOR GROUP II

Subjects AB CD E

1 4 7 33 38 64 25 2 51 22 50 52 31 3 4 1 41 19 58 32 4 53 32 49 58 39 5 42 36 34 56 24 6 38 39 31 61 27 7 30 34 39 49 22 8 59 27 38 61 47 9 40 18 26 48 24 10 34 26 37 62 36 11 4 5 49 46 56 36 12 15 62 39 52 24 13 4 6 33 4 5 4 7 39 14 60 43 51 70 38 15 51 47 39 50 41 16 39 50 4 6 64 36 17 51 20 26 56 43 18 34 41 45 71 37 19 4 5 40 35 57 35 20 4 1 32 18 58 31 21 52 37 37 65 30 22 4 9 14 51 56 48 23 36 31 30 63 26 24 4 4 26 4 8 58 29 25 4 8 24 35 60 35 26 33 25 62 45 45 27 42 33 4 4 62 21 28 33 26 33 44 33 29 39 40 35 48 46 30 38 29 35 59 28 31 4 5 29 35 56 26 32 4 8 38 52 4 7 52 33 50 25 51 53 30 34 4 5 4 4 4 6 52 31 35 4 5 22 39 4 2 37 36 55 32 54 4 8 44 37 4 6 33 56 4 1 62

(continued on next page) 135 TABLE 16 (continued)

Subjects A, B CD E

38 4 7 2? 35 4 8 43 39 51 43 4 9 52 50 40 26 40 4 8 53 26 4 1 32 21 39 66 46 42 4 2 29 39 4 8 23 43 36 19 27 51 40 44 42 30 4 7 59 16 136 TABLE I? HAW SCORES ON VARIABLES OP THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE FOR GROUP II

1 2 3 4-56

Subjects Achieve­ Defer­ Order Exhibi­ Auton­ Affil­ ment ence tion omy iation

1 16 18 14 12 7 19 2 11 10 8 16 14 14 3 7 16 9 18 15 21 4 12 15 16 6 8 18 5 12 15 13 10 8 19 6 13 13 22 9 12 13 7 12 12 6 15 11 15 8 22 13 4 13 13 18 9 10 15 12 20 12 21 10 22 8 13 13 21 12 11 15 14 9 17 9 17 12 11 14 20 6 11 19 13 8 10 19 7 11 16 14 10 17 17 18 13 23 15 15 12 7 14 2 22 16 17 9 6 17 10 21 17 16 13 5 18 9 20 18 10 15 10 17 13 17 19 12 14 14 8 12 18 20 12 18 17 10 8 14 21 15 6 18 17 19 17 22 13 13 11 15 7 23 23 9 8 17 10 12 17 24 10 10 12 14 12 16 25 14 9 13 13 11 9 26 12 4 11 12 7 17 27 14 8 11 9 5 23 28 14 7 7 16 14 18 29 17 13 8 10 1 20 30 13 12 14 14 3 21 31 11 14 10 15 4 19 32 16 13 7 12 13 13 33 11 4 8 18 9 16 34- 14 8 9 14 14 18 35 7 6 11 20 12 23 36 17 14 7 15 9 22 37 21 13 10 18 14 14

(.continued, on next page; 137 TABLE 17 (continued)

1 2 3 4 5 _ 6 Subjects Achieve­ Defer­ Order Exhibi­ Auton­ Affil­ ment ence tion omy iation

38 18 10 5 12 14 15 39 14 13 6 11 7 25 40 10 13 9 16 17 16 41 26 13 12 15 9 11 42 15 12 12 17 7 18 *3 16 13 17 15 14 12 44 10 6 9 14 11 16 138

TABLE 17 (continued)

2 8 2 10 11 12 Subjects Intra- Succor- Domi- Abase* Rurtur- Change ception ance nance ment ance

1 28 14 7 24 18 5 2 22 12 17 17 12 21 3 17 6 12 12 19 19 4 17 14 18 6 16 15 5 21 15 2 22 20 15 6 20 9 12 16 10 25 7 20 19 14 20 14 17 8 16 14 16 5 18 21 9 24 5 22 18 8 8 10 20 14 16 13 12 21 11 21 12 16 20 16 13 12 21 11 2 18 24 13 13 26 12 14 18 18 19 14 18 9 18 6 9 22 15 14 19 13 24 22 18 16 18 16 14 14 17 14 17 12 7 18 15 16 24 18 15 16 16 15 17 14 19 15 13 14 19 12 23 20 13 8 14 14 17 26 21 18 2 16 9 17 25 22 20 13 16 17 16 9 23 10 22 25 17 17 10 24 13 12 11 16 23 21 25 22 12 23 18 7 18 26 16 12 20 21 10 15 27 18 18 12 16 27 11 28 13 11 20 16 20 17 29 23 18 10 19 23 16 30 23 12 7 25 16 19 31 17 16 13 16 21 14 32 24 9 25 11 11 20 33 19 13 19 10 20 15 34 21 3 10 23 21 20 33 16 13 18 15 13 20 36 22 10 22 11 14 10 20 37 14 4 22 13 7

(.continued on next page) 159 TABLE 1? (continued)

2 ______8______9 10 11______12 Subjects Intra- Suecon­ Domi­ Abase­ Nurtur- Change ception ance nance ment ance

58 12 20 18 14 18 20 59 20 7 19 18 24 20 40 15 15 9 19 17 19 4 1 17 22 10 6 15 17 42 17 8 12 15 16 25 43 14 16 15 16 10 22 4 4 20 17 21 12 12 25

(.continued, on next page) 140 TABLE 17 (continued)

13 14 15 Subjects Endurance Heterosexuality Aggression Con- sistenc

1 14 9 5 13 2 9 18 9 13 3 15 16 8 11 4 18 14 15 12 5 15 21 2 11 6 12 13 11 9 7 12 13 10 10 8 19 7 11 11 9 19 7 9 14 10 11 7 7 13 11 17 8 6 11 12 25 7 8 13 13 14 8 10 13 14 17 8 5 12 15 11 10 7 11 16 14 9 14 13 17 8 21 8 10 18 12 16 7 9 19 14 12 10 9 20 13 16 10 13 21 19 15 7 14 22 17 16 4 9 23 4 19 14 12 24 14 17 8 12 25 17 16 8 12 26 9 17 17 10 27 6 17 17 10 28 4 17 16 14 29 9 15 8 13 30 13 13 5 10 31 9 17 12 14 32 7 16 13 13 33 8 22 18 14 34 14 10 11 13 35 12 16 8 12 36 20 12 5 11 37 18 5 17 14

(.continued onnext page) TABLE 17 (continued) 12______lft______1£ Subjects Endurance Heterosexuality Aggression Con­ sistency

38 8 9 17 10 39 10 10 6 12 AO 13 11 13 1A A1 12 11 A 11 A2 23 11 A 13 A3 10 11 9 10 AA 9 6 18 15 142 TABLE 18 SCHOLASTIC ABILITY PERCENTILE SCORES AND GRADE POINT RATIOS FOR GROUP III

Subjects Ohio State Grade Point Psychological Test Scores Ratios (Percentile Scores;

1 52 1.257 2 56 0.622 3 50 1.250 4 48 1.485 5 45 1.313 6 43 1.750 7 34 1.625 8 32 1.844 9 33 1.514- 10 64 1.472 11 32 1.727 12 36 1.889 13 54- 1.815 14 53 1.057 15 53 1.856 16 36 1.400 17 39 1.559 18 59 1.806 19 69 1.171 20 34- 1.471 21 36 1.889 22 4-3 1.941 23 56 1.053 24 59 1.051 25 33 1.781 26 42 1.815 27 38 0.559 28 43 1.200 29 52 1.735 143 TABLE 19 HAW SCORES OH CATEGORIES OP THE AILPORT-VERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OP VALUES POR GROUP III

Subjects Theoret­ Economic Aes­ Social Polit­ Reli­ ical thetic ical gious

1 52 43 34 48 41 42 2 30 38 37 37 46 52 3 40 41 26 31 48 54 4 30 39 30 56 38 47 5 31 35 48 46 27 53 6 35 50 33 45 36 41 7 38 47 31 44 37 43 8 53 53 49 23 43 19 9 29 36 35 47 34 59 10 34 39 38 46 30 53 11 43 43 23 45 41 45 12 42 44 32 48 37 37 13 41 39 34 41 35 50 14 25 41 41 44 41 48 15 36 38 33 46 29 58 16 33 42 39 41 40 45 17 36 36 41 23 51 53 18 34 29 37 58 25 57 19 36 33 29 42 47 53 20 34 39 24 52 37 54 21 44 41 35 34 40 46 22 36 42 47 30 48 37 23 34 39 39 43 30 55 24 37 38 40 44 35 46 25 40 49 31 48 33 39 26 32 46 39 34 35 54 27 30 46 40 38 44 42 28 28 33 31 50 39 59 29 35 43 28 34 45 55 144 TABLE 20 RAW SCORES OR CATEGORIES OP THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD, PERSONAL FOR GROUP III

Subjects A BC D E.

1 53 27 30 60 25 2 41 46 36 48 44 3 36 53 33 55 48 4 36 42 4 1 53 17 5 31 39 26 57 19 6 59 39 50 51 46 7 40 28 26 61 31 8 36 37 42 53 29 9 42 52 55 62 26 10 50 26 30 51 23 11 44 17 47 43 30 12 37 35 30 62 21 13 17 43 26 56 24 14 44 26 29 50 33 15 44 44 41 56 27 16 41 29 29 58 16 17 4 4 32 34 44 59 18 50 25 44 56 36 19 48 36 43 56 31 20 46 33 32 59 35 21 42 41 36 60 32 22 34 34 26 42 34 23 31 45 39 52 22 24 46 51 41 60 28 25 40 37 41 45 25 26 54 43 36 64 39 27 49 34 33 49 57 28 33 28 45 56 36 29 54 35 36 50 53 145 TABLE 21 HAW SCORES ON VARIABLES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE FOR GROUP III

1______2 3 4______5 6 Subjects Achieve­ Defer­ Order Exhibi­ Auton­ Affil­ ment ence tion omy iation

1 5 6 12 11 16 26 2 8 16 7 20 17 12 3 15 16 12 8 9 17 4 9 17 12 8 9 17 5 11 14 15 18 8 15 6 15 12 17 11 12 20 7 5 20 13 14 3 18 8 11 12 14 16 12 9 9 15 15 10 14 12 20 10 11 7 11 13 9 20 11 18 15 10 20 12 18 12 11 13 16 20 5 12 13 8 17 14 13 17 14 14 5 6 6 18 15 19 15 17 10 14 16 9 15 16 9 17 12 15 12 19 17 6 10 5 14 10 21 18 11 13 21 11 12 7 19 15 11 15 13 11 18 20 5 19 14 9 7 22 21 14 7 13 19 14 15 22 18 11 9 12 12 20 23 16 18 10 14 16 16 24 8 16 13 14 10 14 25 6 8 12 17 14 17 26 9 18 8 12 8 19 27 13 6 6 21 22 20 28 7 11 17 15 18 9 29 18 12 3 18 10 12

(.continued on next page; 146 TABLE 21 (continued)

______2______8______9 10 11 12 Subjects Intracap- Succor- Domi- Abase- Nurtur- Change tion once nance ment ance

1 8 18 12 9 21 18 2 15 13 10 21 15 11 3 17 12 9 18 12 20 4 18 7 11 24 24 18 5 19 20 5 22 21 13 6 20 11 20 9 14 14 7 20 20 11 14 20 21 8 16 14 15 15 19 18 9 26 6 21 7 23 8 10 15 21 12 13 19 16 11 12 16 16 12 17 14 12 21 8 7 18 11 20 13 21 8 7 26 19 16 14 21 15 14 16 16 21 15 9 13 12 16 24 11 16 21 7 11 24 20 26 17 19 13 17 12 22 26 18 22 10 3 15 16 18 19 20 13 19 12 17 12 20 13 9 11 22 21 21 21 7 15 17 13 17 26 22 13 13 15 16 10 21 23 8 5 8 20 24 22 24 18 19 12 19 14 12 25 16 16 12 16 18 24 26 15 11 21 16 12 19 27 13 7 12 12 17 14 26 17 9 15 24 14 9 29 22 6 19 14 21 24

(continued on next page) 147 TABLE 21 (continued)

______12______w ______15______Subjects Endurance Heterosexuality Aggression Con­ sistency

1 7 26 15 14 2 19 10 12 14 3 17 12 12 8 4 20 9 7 13 5 4 21 4 14 6 17 11 7 12 7 17 10 4 10 8 19 15 15 11 9 21 7 5 13 10 12 23 8 9 11 6 12 12 12 12 17 17 14 14 13 15 6 9 13 14 3 20 15 15 15 18 14 12 10 16 7 6 4 15 17 7 13 15 14 18 19 26 6 13 19 11 13 10 11 20 18 11 8 14 21 17 11 5 11 22 17 11 12 11 23 18 13 2 11 24 22 15 4 12 25 16 14 4 10 26 17 15 10 10 27 11 26 10 13 28 18 11 16 13 29 12 9 10 15 148 TABLE 22 SCHOLASTIC ABILITY PERCENTILE SCORES AND GRADE POINT RATIOS FOR GROUP IV

Subjects Ohio State Grade Point Psychological Test Scores Ratios (Percentile Scores)

1 8 2.876 2 71 2.824 3 99 3.500 4 91 3.378 5 63 3.067 6 91 3.730 7 59 2.889 8 22 3.189 9 67 3.000 10 99 3.029 ll 69 2.942 12 96 3.194 13 96 3.297 14 98 3.088 15 45 3.194 16 87 2.876 17 64 3.611 18 69 2.843 19 99 3.294 20 98 3.676 21 98 3.656 22 7* 3.765 23 58 2.857 24 82 3.114 25 94 3.350 26 48 3.176 27 85 2.843 28 78 3.500 29 96 3.750 149 TABLE 23 RAW SCORES ON CATEGORIES OF THE ALLPORT-VERNON-LINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES FOR GROUP IV

Subjects Theoret­ Economic Aes­ Social Polit­ Reli ical thetic ical gioi

1 33 41 34 43 42 47 2 29 27 40 46 36 62 3 28 32 47 49 34 50 4 30 37 28 59 36 50 5 33 42 46 26 54 39 6 39 41 29 48 42 41 7 45 47 53 31 35 29 8 35 36 39 45 40 45 9 39 43 35 48 34 41 10 30 45 42 49 41 33 11 36 39 36 37 51 41 12 35 40 35 47 40 43 13 44 32 36 36 46 46 14 37 34 36 37 53 43 15 32 44 29 41 43 51 16 43 53 44 30 44 26 17 32 33 40 49 33 53 18 39 33 35 44 37 52 19 52 23 61 27 41 36 20 33 36 39 40 43 49 21 38 34 51 40 38 39 22 31 32 28 4 8 41 60 23 38 41 45 47 36 33 24 35 42 29 40 46 48 2$ 40 46 42 24 39 49 26 33 37 45 48 38 39 27 43 32 25 44 39 57 28 34 40 39 37 33 57 29 46 27 50 27 50 40 150 TABLE 24 HAW SCORES ON CATEGORIES OF THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD, PERSONAL FOR GROUP IV

Subjects A B C DE

1 27 33 35 51 28 2 52 36 52 60 51 3 25 41 28 58 28 4 52 30 32 63 44 5 4 9 29 30 54 56 6 4 8 24 35 60 35 7 4 5 32 4 1 46 21 8 35 28 4 8 43 40 9 45 31 25 72 30 10 54 22 37 36 57 11 36 26 38 51 35 12 50 25 51 53 30 13 4 8 38 52 47 52 14 4 6 33 56 41 62 13 34 2? 43 55 35 16 29 41 24 50 12 17 4 3 52 41 61 36 18 39 46 49 68 26 19 4 2 29 39 48 23 20 51 43 49 52 50 21 4 7 27 35 48 43 22 39 41 44 45 4-7 23 4 9 44 37 65 27 24 4 4 39 46 53 36 25 43 32 40 64 29 26 45 20 37 55 25 27 53 23 44 56 39 28 49 31 52 56 29 29 42 23 61 40 48 151 TABLE 25 RAW SCORES ON VARIABLES OF THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE FOR GROUP IV

1 2 3 A 5 ... 6 Subjects Achieve­ Defer­ Order Exhibi­ Auton­ Affil­ ment ence tion omy iation

1 12 12 23 11 11 16 2 9 12 13 13 5 21 5 9 10 19 8 10 18 A 6 16 10 13 9 20 5 12 1A 11 12 7 17 6 1A 9 13 13 11 9 7 20 12 10 19 11 13 8 9 10 12 11 8 21 9 17 12 12 13 9 17 10 1A 9 5 12 21 15 11 A 15 11 1A 13 20 12 11 A 8 18 9 16 13 16 13 7 12 13 13 1A 21 13 10 18 1A 1A 15 11 9 18 11 A 17 16 1A 11 1A 11 17 12 17 9 1A 13 12 13 22 16 9 11 1A 10 7 19 19 15 12 12 17 7 18 20 1A 13 6 11 7 25 21 18 10 5 12 1A 15 22 13 8 7 17 21 16 23 9 16 11 15 11 17 2A 11 1A 5 15 8 25 25 18 15 1 1 5 21 26 2A 12 16 12 12 17 27 13 9 12 10 11 21 28 17 11 7 1A 2 19 29 2A 8 7 17 19 9

(continued on next page) TABLE 25 (continued)

7 8 9 10 11 12 Subjects Intra- Succor- Domi­ Abase­ Nurtur- Change ception ance nance ment ance

1 18 13 9 24 23 7 2 27 13 14 15 27 18 3 18 17 5 20 25 18 4 23 8 14 20 22 18 5 16 12 20 21 10 15 6 22 12 23 18 7 18 7 15 16 16 12 8 23 8 23 14 12 14 19 15 9 14 20 15 15 17 14 10 16 6 15 4 17 22 11 21 13 7 22 15 25 12 19 13 19 10 20 15 13 24 9 25 11 11 20 14 14 4 22 13 7 20 15 14 13 18 21 18 8 16 19 19 6 16 13 21 17 22 10 14 23 25 7 18 19 8 8 22 24 24 19 17 8 12 15 16 23 20 20 7 19 18 24 20 21 12 20 18 14 18 20 22 24 5 17 17 17 19 23 14 15 14 17 18 14 24 17 9 23 13 19 18 25 13 16 13 22 19 15 26 14 16 15 9 14 8 27 18 15 13 22 18 13 28 22 15 12 13 21 23 29 27 2 18 14 7 20

(.continued on next page) TABLE 25 (continued)

______15______1 5 ______Endurance Heterosexuality Aggression

15 7 9 13 10 8 5 11 15 9 9 12 10 15 6 15 9 17 17 10 17 16 8 12 16 11 8 10 10 15 17 10 15 13 9 15 19 21 13 12 10 13 7 15 8 22 18 14 7 16 13 15 18 5 17 14 18 21 9 15 9 23 4 14 9 5 12 14 16 11 4 9 23 11 4 15 10 10 6 12 8 9 17 10 5 12 12 14 13 20 6 10 8 8 12 12 3 11 17 18 5 14 22 8 5 15 9 18 7 15 19 9 10 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books. Manuals, and Tests Allport, Gordon W., "Attitudes," Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Carl Murchison. Worcester: Clark University Press, 1935.

Allport, Gordon W., Vernon, Philip E., and Lindzey, Gardner. Study of Values. Revised Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951. . Manual of Directions for the Study of Values. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951. Edwards, Allen L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York: The Psychologlc'al Corporation, 1953. . Statistical Analysis. New York: Rinehart and Company,""Inc., 1958. Fryer, Douglas. The Measurement of Interests. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 19^1. Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories of Personality. New York: John Wiley and Sons,“Tno.,

Kaplan, Oscar J. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Vocational Guidance. Vol. I. New York: The PSTlosophical Library, 1948. Kuder, Frederic. Examiner Manual for the Kuder Preferences Record. Personal, form A. Chicago: Science Research. Associates, Inc., 1948."" . Kuder Preference Reoord, Personal. Form AH. Chicago: Science Researoh Associates! Inc., 1948. Murray, Henry A., et al. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford tJniversity Press,"T938. Strong, E. K. Jr. Vocational Interests of Men and Women. Stanford: Stanford tJniversity Press, 1943.

Terman, L. M. Genetic Studies of Genius. Stanford: Stanford University Press,"T925. The Ohio State University. College of Education Bulletin. 6olumhus: 1958. 15* 155 Articles

Bendlg, A. W. "Validity of Kuder Differences Among Honors Majors," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XVII (1QS^). Birge, William R. "Preferences and Behavior Ratings of Dominanoe," Educational and Psychological Measurement. A tl9fe0). Bolanovich, Daniel J. and Goodman, Charles H. "A Study of the Kuder Preference Reoord," Educational and Psychological Measurement. IV (194i). Burgemeister, B. B. "The Permanence of Interests of Women College Students," Archives of Psychology. No. E55 (1940). Calvin, Allen D. and Others. "A Further Investigation of the Relationship between Manifest Anxiety and Intelligence,w Journal of Consulting Psychology. XXX (1955). Cantril, H. and Allport, Gordon W* "Recent Applications of the Study of Values," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XXVIII (l9t33-1934TI Cattell, R. B., Heist, A. B., Heist, P. S., and Stewart, R. G. "The Objective Measurement of Dynamic Traits," Educational and Psychological Measurement. X (1950) • Cohen, J. B. "A Soale for the Measurement of Attitude Toward the Aesthetic Value," Journal of Psychology. XII (1941). Corey, Stephen M. "Professed Attitudes and Actual Behavior," The Journal of Educational Psychology. XXVIII (1937). Crosby, Richard C. "Scholarship Achievement and Measured Interest," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXVII (1943)• Cross, Orrin H. "A Study of Faking on the Kuder Preference Record," Eduoational and Psychological Measurement. X (1950). 156

Duffy, E. and Crissey, W. J. E. "Evaluative Attitudes as Related to Vocational Interests and Academic Achievement," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology* XXXV (1940*JT Ford, C. A. "The Allport-Vemon Study of Values Applied to 465 Entering Freshmen," Psychological Bulletin, XXX (1933). Gebhart, G. Gary and Hoyt, Donald P. "Personality Needs Of Under and Overachieving Freshmen," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXXH (1956). Hake, Dorothy Terry and Ruedisili, C. H. "Predicting Subject Grades of Liberal Arts Freshmen with the Kuder Preference Record," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXIII (1949). Halladay, D. Whitney and Andrew, Dean C. "Drop-outs from Arkansas Colleges," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, (November, 1958). Himelstein, Philip. "Interrelationships among Three Measures of Need Achievement," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XXII (1958). Kimber, J. A. Morris. "The Insight of College Students into the Items on A Personality Test," Eduoational and Psychological Measurement. VII (194TH Lurie, Walter A. "A Study of Spranger's Value-Types by the Method of Factor Analysis," Journal of Social Psychology. VIII (1937). MoGinnies, E. and Bowles, W. "Personal Values as Determinants of Perceptual Fixation," Journal of Personality. XVIII (1949). Mosier, Mary F. and Kuder, G. Frederic. "Personal Pre­ ference Differences among Occupational Groups, " Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXIII (1949). Owens, W. A. and Johnson, Wilma C. "Some Measured Personality Traits of Collegiate Underachievers," Journal of Psychology. XL (1949)•

Phillips, W. S. and Osborne, R. T* "A Note on the Re­ lationship of the Kuder Preference Reoord Scales to College Marks, Soholastio Aptitude and Other Variables," Eduoational and Psychological Measurement. IX (1949). 157

Pintner, R. "A Comparison of Interests, Abilities, and Attitudes," Journal of Abnormal and Sooial Psychology. XXVII (1933). Pintner, R. and Forlano, G. "Dominant Interests and Personality Characteristics," Journal of General Psychology. XXI (1939). Reid, John W. "Stability of Measured Kuder Interests in Young Adults," Journal of Educational Research. XXXXV (19 51-19 52^ Rothney, J. W. M. "Evaluative Attitudes and Academic Sucoess," Journal of Eduoational Psychology. XXVII (1936). Schaefer, B. R. "The Validity and Utility of the Allport- Vernon Study of Values Test," Journal of Abnormal and Sooial Psychology. XXX (1936). Shorr, Joseph E. "The Development of a Test to Measure the Intensity of Values," The Journal of Educational Psychology. XXXXIV (May, 1953) • Thorndike, E. L. Jr. "Early Interests - their Prominenoe and Relation to Abilities," School and Sooiety. V (1917). . "The Correlation between Interests and Abilities in College Courses," Psychological Review. XXVIII (1921). . "Interests and Abilities," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXVIII (1944). Trow, William Clark. "The Value Concept in Eduoational Psychology," Journal of Educational Psychology. (1953). Trumbull, R. "Study of Relationships between Factors of Personality and Intelligence," Journal of Psychology. XXXVIII (1953). Wright, John C. and Scarborough, Barron B. "Relationship of the Interests of College Freshmen to their Interests as Sophomores and as Seniors," Educational and Psychological Measurament. XVUi (19&8). AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, Paul Lewis Ward, was born January 22, 1928, in

Cheshire, Ohio* I attended public schools in Gallia

County, Ohio, graduating from the high school in Cheshire,

Ohio, in June, 1944* In 1945 I enrolled in Rio Grande

College and was awarded the Bachelor of Science degree in

Elementary Education in 1949 and the Bachelor of Science degree in Secondary Education in 1950* While pursuing these undergraduate degrees, I taught for two years in

Ueigs County, Ohio* Prom 1951 through 1955 I taught at the secondary level in Gallia County, Ohio* Following this experience I served two years in the military service*

From 1956 through 1959 I served as an Instructor and Counselor in the Department of Education at The Ohio

State University, while at the same time pursuing graduate work* In March, 1957t I was awarded the Master of Educa­ tion degree in the teaching of English* This work toward the M* Ed* degree was done under the direction of Mr*

Howard Francis Seely* The study beyond the Master's level was focused upon guidance, counseling psychology, second­ ary education, and higher education*

158